Datasets:

Deysi

/

split-imdb

like 0

My first exposure to the Templarios & not a good one. I was excited to find this title among the offerings from Anchor Bay Video, which has brought us other cult classics such as "Spider Baby". The print quality is excellent, but this alone can't hide the fact that the film is deadly dull. There's a thrilling opening sequence in which the villagers exact a terrible revenge on the Templars (& set the whole thing in motion), but everything else in the movie is slow, ponderous &, ultimately, unfulfilling. Adding insult to injury: the movie was dubbed, not subtitled, as promised on the video jacket.

Shakalaka Boom Boom is a rip off from the movie Amadeus. I personally rate Amadeus as one of my favorites not only because it is about music, which is my favorite subject, but also because it tells us the real story of a musical genius who is not only remembered for the voluminous works of beautiful music he produced during his life-time, but for his own self-destructive nature and his tragic death at a young age of 35, being virtually uncelebrated during his life time because of the politics played by some people, particularly Saliere, the Italian composer, who was jealous of him.<br /><br />Personally, I was shocked to see Shakalaka.., as the director has invariably cut-pasted most of the scenes from the movie Amadeus. I see the worst kind of plagiarism in this movie and am skeptic about the kind of movies Bollywood keeps on churning day by day. The movie is a disaster, the two musicians in the movie don't give you any feeling of being realistic, the film is tasteless, meaningless and total failure on every count. The only person who makes an impact is Bobby Deol, who at least knows how to act. Otherwise, the whole cast looks like a bunch of amateurs.<br /><br />The irony is that while watching the movie, the first screen in the movie says that all characters in this movie are fictitious and that any resemblance with anyone is purely coincidental which is a blatant lie, because all resemblances are very much clear and they are very much intended. I wish I could take Darshan and Co. to court not only for Copyright Infringement, but also for mutilating a beautiful work of art.

We chose to see this movie as an alternative to The Polar Express showing at our local IMAX theater. What a waste of time and money! First, it is not cute. The Snowman, at times, looked demonic. Other times, he was simply a zombie. He showed no expression or emotions most of the time, and his hollow blue eyes were just creepy.<br /><br />Secondly, Santa states in the beginning it's a movie about the spirit of giving. Santa and a snowman declaring war on each other is a movie about giving? I'm all for a little parody, but this just wasn't funny or entertaining.<br /><br />The idea that the Snowman's flute is his voice is different. Too bad you never see or hear the snowman play his flute...not even a "thank you" to Santa.<br /><br />The only funny parts of the movie were the "outtakes" at the end of the film. Too bad they didn't use them in the movie. It would have been better.

I watched this movie on TCM last night, all excited expectation, having last seen it (twice) in its memorable 1957 release in Toronto. I told my wife, who hadn't seen it before, to watch for the thrilling long tracking shot, no cuts, where Veronika is seen on a bus on her way to find her Boris. In a hand-held frame that certainly predates the modern Steadicam, the shot then pulls back up and cranes (pun unintended) over the street as she exits the bus, and darts among the tanks to cross the road. THEN I remember that, no cuts, we follow her up close to the fence as she peers through, anxiously looking for him, but does not find him. But we do continue to follow Veronika as she searches the faces of harried recruits and their emotionally racked women, all extras, and each one a gem of riveting Stanislavskian behavior. How, one wonders, did Kalatozov and his cameraman Urusevsky set up this extraordinary sequence. But what did I see in this version? After crossing the street dodging the tanks, the scene abruptly ended, and cut back to scenes at the apartment, before continuing to the soldiers and their families at the fence. Seems to me that this film was not only restored, but also re-edited. What a downer!

"Such a Long Journey" is a well crafted film, a good shoot, and a showcase for some good performances. However, the story is such a jumble of subplots and peculiar characters that it becomes a sort of Jack of all plots and master of none. Also, Western audiences will likely find the esoterics of the rather obscure Parsee culture a little much to get their arms around in 1.7 hours. Recommended for those with an interest in India.

Some TV programs continue into embarrassment (my beloved 'X-Files' comes to mind.) I've been a fan of Dennis Farina since 'Crime Story,' another late, lamented show. 'Buddy Faro' never had a chance. The series had a good premise and great actors. It's really, really a shame.

This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.

Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10

Master of Italian horror Dario Argento is called a lot of bad things by non-fans. And is deserving of absolutely none of the backlash. In fact, every time I hear something bad about Argento- I think they're really talking about Michele Soavi. He just doesn't get the same amount of attention because his films were never as successful in theaters. In fact, his best film - 1994's Cemetery Man - was probably his least successful. Or just didn't get the attention he felt it deserved, because after that, he left film and went into directing television. He's never gone back. So people really don't know how inferior his other films are because by the time they've seen them, they're already fans of the Italian horror aesthetic. Which means you have to accept the fact that they make almost zero sense and are usually very unattractive films. This is where The Church stands out from the pack. Because visually, it's so cheap and ancient-looking, you can smell the dust. But it has its' charms too, though they are few. The camera-work is truly arresting and the music score is hugely elaborate and grand.<br /><br />Since Argento is the reasons people have seen Soavi's work all, I don't know anyone who caught The Church before Argento's Suspiria and Deep Red. Soavi is a bit of a hack. Sort of like an Italian Mick Garris- the utmost example of a director preferring style over substance. The flaws of The Church are constant and plenty. The film opens with a somewhat interesting prologue showing knights on white horses charging through a peasant village akin to those you see in any Robin Hood adaptation, in some long-ago century. These scenes are intense enough, energetic, and get quickly to the point. Then, we cut to the present, where the film's style takes over. Yeah, the movie is okay to look at. And for about 35 or so minutes in the present, 1980's wherever-Italy, the movie is just interesting enough to get us to the slowly revealing horror elements. So now we know the purpose of the film is the build up of it's horror. And it's a decent build up, for the most part. But as the movie approaches the halfway point, we realize the movie's driving by, and... nothing is happening.<br /><br />The plot is very simple. I think. Two people working in a church, one as a cataloger of books and the other as a restorer of the building's wall artwork, discover a scroll / scripture that the man thinks will lead them to some kind of buried treasure or priceless artifact that he can sell and get rich off of. So he follows his 'map' only to uncover a force underneath the church that has him hallucinate, while he's slowly becoming a demon who will make everyone else hallucinate. So while he is doing his demon-work, someone he passed the force onto kills himself in a manner that traps everyone in the church while the demon 'contagen' spreads onto everyone, leaving a Black preacher and the little girl who sneaks out of the church every night to go clubbing as the only 2 people who can stop the plague from spreading beyond the church walls. That probably sounds action-packed and Soavi's style is far more lethargic than Argento. But never before have I seen an attempted surrealist film this agonizingly boring. I kid you not. Absolutely nothing happens in the entire film! I've seen expressionistic (or impressionistic, I'm no film school super-grad) films before, but most of them actually show things happening (John Carpenter's Halloween for one).<br /><br />It follows pretty closely in the footsteps of Lamberto Bava's Demons films (since Argento co-produced). We're shown to a location where a bunch of people gather, one turns into a demon, all the others are isolated, that person infects everyone except a couple survivors, then the demons either get out- infecting the world, or the survivors get out when the demons die. This film puts all those same elements in place. Except, unlike Argento's work, nothing happens. Okay, a few things do happen. But only one bizarre sequence has the panache of Lamberto's much more fun Demons films. A random woman's neck is impaled by a demon using a section of fence he rips out of the floor. What's bizarre about that, you wonder? It happens in front of about two dozen people. What do they do? Nothing. She dies, her head trickles blood in closeup. But all those people don't even notice, though it happens in plain view and no less than 8 feet away from them. Maybe 4 people notice the demon running up to stab anyone he can as he runs toward her, so they duck out of the way. She's killed and in the shot after she dies, everyone is just sitting around, being quiet while a boy plays a saxophone. I kid you not. That's what happens. That's more than logically incoherent- it's plain stupid.<br /><br />The scene is suggesting that the woman just sort of disappears and no one saw her death. They all just up and forget about it. And this 15-second thing is absolutely the only event that takes place in the movie. I'm not saying it's the only violence, gore, or murder we see. It's not. It's just the only thing we can tell is happening. For example, in one scene a beautiful woman sees herself in a mirror looking old and ugly. She starts clawing the skin on her face off, but when she reappears minutes later- no scratches. People are devoured by fish and their faces are squashed by subway cars. But later they turn up as totally unharmed members of a possessed cult, in a scene that commits the ultimate horror heresy- copying a famous scene from Roman Polanski's 1968 masterpiece, Rosemary's Baby, the greatest horror film ever made, shot for shot. Even if Argento did that, I would be furious!

I loved this movie! It was adorably touching and funny. Finally, here's a story about a group of people who meet some challenges, flounder a bit, and then decide to just be themselves and end up happy for; when was the last time you saw that in a film? Dealing with the fluidity of life, love, and sexuality, the characters are faced with real problems (albeit in often ridiculous situations like the men's group camping trip, and the explicit realatory liaisons) and manage to learn and grow without the movie getting preachy, darkly desperate, or too unrealistic. You'll love and care about the characters who, far from being hollow stereotypes, portray real people with just a touch of the truth behind their would-be labels.<br /><br />A good romcom for a Saturday afternoon, and the only movie I've ever seen where sexual fluidity ends happily, and no one is forced to be anything they don't want to be. Far better than Kissing Jessica Stein, a good choice if your tired of watching gay movies that have some painful lesson and bitter lesson. Or, maybe you just like a good British romp? James Purefoy looks dashing as always, and Tom Hollander is deliciously funny. So go forth, watch, enjoy; you won't regret it!

He's stocky, sweaty, slightly cross-eyed and restless. He stands in front of us and calls himself a pervert. He claims that we – the film viewers – perceive the screen as a toilet bowl, and are all secretly wishing for all the s**t to explode from the inside. He's unpredictable and scary. Well…? Come on, you could have guessed by now: he's one of the leading philosophers of our age.<br /><br />Slavoj Žižek is both a narrator and a subject of Sophie Fiennes' extraordinary new film, A Pervert's Guide to the Cinema. Fiennes illustrates a feature-long lecture by Žižek, and does so in two ways: by providing exemplary film clips and putting Žižek on real (or reconstructed) locations from the movies he speaks about. It's always nice to watch neatly captioned scenes from great movies (although Revenge of the Sith got here as well), but the main attraction of A Pervert's Guide… is Žižek himself. What makes the movie such fun to watch is the unanswerable question one cannot help but ask over and over again: what is more outrageous, Žižek's views or Žižek's screen presence? In a documentary by Astra Taylor (Žižek!, 05), Slovenian philosopher at one point confessed his fear of being silent. Because, he claimed, he feels like he doesn't exist in the first place, the only way to make all other people believe he does is to talk constantly and feverishly. And talk he did, and how. Also A Pervert's Guide… is dominated by his voice – delivering perfect English in most crazy way, and making some astonishing points about the cinema.<br /><br />What are those? Well, for example he sees Chaplin's reluctance towards talking picture as a sign of an universal fear of voice itself (kind of alien force taking over the human being – think the ventriloquist segment of Dead of Night [45]). He says that the perverse nature of cinema is to teach us to desire certain objects, not to provide us with them. He identifies Groucho Marx as super ego, Chico as ego and Harpo as id. He says a million other interesting things, and all the time we cannot take our eyes off him, so persuasive (and captivating) are his looks. At some point I couldn't help but stare at his thick, scruffy hair and wonder what kind of a brain lays stored underneath. Craving, of course, for more insights.<br /><br />Most notable are Žižek's readings of Lynch and Hitchcock (which comes as no surprise since he has written about both of them). The cumulative effect of many brilliantly edited clips from their respective work made those parts of Žižek's lecture memorable and – unlike others – difficult to argue with, since he seems to really have gotten things right on these two directors. This doesn't go for his reading of Tarkovsky for example, upon whom he relentlessly imposes his own utterly materialistic view of reality, dismissing precisely what's so remarkable in all Tarkovsky (namely strong religious intuitions and images).<br /><br />The question isn't whether Žižek is inspiring and brilliant, because he is; or whether Fiennes film is worth watching, because it is likewise. The real question is rather: are Žižek views coherent? One smart observation after another make for an overwhelming intellectual ride, but after the whole thing is over, some doubts remain. For example: while considering Vertigo (58) Žižek states that what's hidden behind human face is a perfect void, which makes face itself only a facade: something of a deception in its own means. However, when in the final sequence we hear about the ever-shattering finale of City Lights (31) as being a portrait of one human being fully exposed to another, it's hard not to ask: what happened to the whole facade-thing…? Why should we grant Chaplin's face intrinsic value of the real thing and deprive Kim Novak's of this same privilege in two bold strokes…? Or maybe that incoherence might also be read in Lacan's terms? (The name of the notoriously "unreadable" French psychoanalyst is fundamental to Žižek's thought.) The film has all the virtues of a splendid two-and-a-half hours lecture: lots of ground are covered, many perspectives employed, even some first-rate wisecracks made (when Žižek travels on a Melanie Daniels' boat from The Birds [63] and tries to think as she did, he comes up with: "I want to f**k Mitch!"). But it has also one shortcoming that isn't inherent to two-and-a-half hours lecture as such: it's almost obsessively digressive. Žižek's yarn about how far are we from the Real is as good as any other psychoanalytic yarn, but after some 80 minutes it becomes quite clear that one of Žižek's perverse pleasures is to ramble on and on, changing subjects constantly. Overall effect is this of being swept away by a giant, cool, fizzing wave: you're simultaneously taken by surprise, refreshed, in mortal danger and confused no end. As you finish watching, your head is brimming with ideas not of your own and you're already planning on re-watching some films – but you also share a sense of having survived a calamity.<br /><br />The ultimate question is: did Žižek lost it? Or haven't we even came close to the real thing? Once cinephilia becomes punishable by imprisonment, we shall all meet in a one big cell and finally talk to each other (not having any movies around to turn our faces to). I dare you all: who will have enough guts to approach Žižek and defy him? My guess is that once you look into those eyes in real life, you become a believer.

Just like most people, I couldn't wait to see this Ocean's 11 sequel but it really stinks, I must say. It stinks because there's simply no good screenplay,it was just cheap. I hope the producers donate all the money this movie has made (or will make) to the tsunami-victims in Asia so this movie will have at least one good reason to exist. It is so bad I even can't write a decent comment about it but....i still advise the creators of this thing to make "Ocean's 13". Ocean's 13 will be about the same thieves who are trying to steal a screenplay well hidden somewhere in Hollywood. The 13th member will be a foreign (maybe,Russian) screenplay-writer who knows all tricks to write a copy of this well hidden screenplay, so they can replace the original they'll have to steal. Or they need to find at least 13 people to write a decent screenplay for a movie in which not only Julia Roberts plays herself but even all other star-members of the Ocean's-films. 13 People because it's the lucky number of Andy Garcia's character.

a mesmerizing film that certainly keeps your attention... Ben Daniels is fascinating (and courageous) to watch.

Without doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Sluggish and without structure, tension or story, the film coasts on the thin premise of "putting together a show". Conflicts are resolved within two or three seconds of their inception and dialogue is random and incidental. Everything is put together in a slapdash order and often "Stepping Out" feels more like a deleted scenes reel than an actual movie. The film seems to exist merely as a showcase for gaudy and totally random Liza musical numbers. Shelly Winters can be seen in the far superior octo-epic "Tentacles", and the REAL Liza can be found in the Showtime release of "Queer Duck: The Movie".

A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.<br /><br />First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.<br /><br />Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike "2001", which had traditional classical music.<br /><br />Third, its "monster" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.<br /><br />Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.<br /><br />In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny.

"Crossfire" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.<br /><br />I don't know about 1947, but seeing "Crossfire" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.<br /><br />The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.<br /><br />Truly excellent, and a must see.

I can't understand why many IMDb users don't like this movie. Why they think it's sooooo bad etc. It's not worse than anything else out there. Personally I think "Soldier" is a great movie, far better than most other films in the same genre.<br /><br />Reasons why I liked "Soldier": Kurt Russel, Connie Nielsen, Jason Scott Lee, the script (David Webb Peoples), great visual effects, and the directing (Paul Anderson).<br /><br />I even think that this is the best work I've seen from director Paul Anderson, who has previously directed the entertaining "Mortal Kombat" and the not so entertaining "Event Horizon".

The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.

A space ship cruising through the galaxy encounters a mysterious cargo ship apparently adrift in space. The crew investigates, hoping to lay claim to its cargo and acquire the ship. However, once aboard the ominous vessel, their own ship mysteriously disengages, leaving them to fend for themselves and battle none other then Count Dracula or Orloff as this creature calls himself.<br /><br />Not a bad start. I mean it follows any number of typical sci-fi/horror plots. The genres have been around enough that even the most original story will inevitably invoke comparison to some other film. But, when you start with a fairly typical horror convention, the legend of Dracula and vampires in general, and combine it with a fairly typical sci-fi convention, a crew happening upon something and becoming marooned to battle whatever they're forced to confront, the filmmakers better have some clever up their sleeve to imprint their own mark on the familiar genre staples.<br /><br />Director Darrell Roodt, who also wrote Dracula 3000 with Ivan Milborrow, is primarily responsible for this utter failure. So, no, Roodt and Milborrow have nothing up their sleeves but their arms.<br /><br />This film begins ominously enough, with a very poorly delivered voice over by Caspar Van Dien, essentially providing enough exposition to explain who the crew on his ship are. I should also point out that Van Dien's character is named Van Helsing. And, oh so very cleverly, this Orloff character is from planet Transylvania in the Carpathian System. No kidding. I mean, come on guys, we get it. And, again, don't be goofy and use such names unless you got something special in store.<br /><br />So, after Van Helsing's introduction of the crew, we have, essentially, a film about this crew trapped in a space ship with a vampire lurking about.<br /><br />I'm a very forgiving viewer when it comes to low budget films. Occasionally, they can be brilliant, see Raimi's first two Evil Dead films. Dracula 3000 had a decent budget, enough for some decent special effects and for the salaries of 3rd stringers like, Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, etc. However, unlike, the EVIL DEAD flicks, there is no talent behind the camera. In front of the camera, the talent is marginal, but I'm going to give the actors some benefit of the doubt. It really seems like they don't know what to do. The best actor of the bunch, Alexandra Kamp-Groenveld, gets killed off quickly and the ever-enjoyable Udo Kier is reduced to being an exposition vehicle for the viewer as the deceased captain we hear and see via a video journal. Grant Swandby is also okay as the Professor, but it's hard to take seriously a scientist in the year 3000 who wears glasses and rides a wheel chair. And, yes, it's a WHEEL chair as in there is nothing futuristic about it. As for the rest of the actors, well…….I'm sure Coolio really tried to be scary after getting turned into a vampire, but, well, I don't think irritating qualifies as scary in most people's book. Tiny Lister and Erika Eleniak don't really provide much either. Lister is never really more then the IL' big brawny black stereotype. Eleniak actually appears unhappy throughout the film and never tries very hard. Eleniak is a pretty girl, even in her mid thirties, but looks a little worn out and uninterested for the movie's duration.<br /><br />This brings us to Count Dracula/Orloff played by Langley Kirkwood. To be honest, I can't recall who exactly the vampire is supposed to be. He introduces himself as Orloff but at some point he acknowledges himself as Count Dracula as well. Go figure. In any case, you will be absolutely astounded by just how lame this vampire is. Have you ever scene those cheesy horror show hosts local networks would have on their creature feature time slots? Yes, it's that bad. Langley Kirkwood, the actor playing Orlock, must have found it almost impossible to concentrate in such a ridiculous outfit. I'm sure he's still getting hassled by his friends.<br /><br />There isn't much to the plot. The vampire is the last of it's kind and wants to go to Earth, for some reason, and also, there is some lip service about wanting to defeat Caspar Van Dien's character, Van Helsing. Most of the crew get turned into vampires, including Van Helsing, and the crew use conventional machine guns and pistols to try and defeat them before they figure out the old stake in the heart routine. Yeah, that's right, bullets, and yes, the year 3000. Keeping in that baffling vein, one of the main areas the crew hole themselves up in while battling the vampires, or vampire, since there is really never more then one threatening them, is filled with old Soviet posters and insignia and such. What the? There are also references to God/religion being antiquated systems. But these references only confused me. Did the Soviet Union make a comeback? Is there some point Roodt and Milborrow want to make with this? It never really goes anywhere, seems dumb and the posters, etc. just look cheap.<br /><br />On the positive side, the film is competently shot and edited. The cinematography is nothing spectacular, but it's clearly done by professionals and, I had no problem with the special effects. The ships look like ships in outer space. Although, as I write this, I recall how god awful the corpse of the captain looks when the crew discover him. What were they thinking? Why didn't someone say something? See how difficult it is to say something positive about this film without falling back on the negatives? I guess, ultimately, that's the thing. Whatever positives you try and grant this sci-fi/horror debacle, you become overwhelmed by it's lack of quality.<br /><br />Poor Udo Kier.

Director Lo Wei was known to read the racing papers and take naps on the set - tells us something about his "approach to film-making, huh? The reviews I've read fall into two categories: 1) this is a film so bad it is funny, or 2) this is a film so bad it is boring.<br /><br />So let's get to the point we all agree on - this film is really bad.<br /><br />I vote for category 2). The story is almost incomprehensibly complex, and it is further shredded and twisted by the remarkably poor camera work and editing. Yet Lo Wei was so in love with it that he slows the pacing so we can all have a long look at it, whether we want to or not.<br /><br />Maybe Lo Wei was upset the day (or two) this film was made - he just wanted to make everybody suffer, cast, crew and audiences alike.<br /><br />Spare yourself the agony.

Shakespeare said that we are actors put into a great stage. But when this stage is Israel the work that we interpret multiplies for ten and all the actions we do are full of a hard style. Dan Katzir manages to do a spectacular portrait of a part of life in Tel Aviv, but besides, Katzir manages to penetrate into the heart of the Israeli people and, this people, far from being simple prominent figures, they speak to us from the heart. Katzir's film allows Israel escape from dark informative crux in which they live, and this wonderful country arises to the light as a splendid bird which is born of his ashes. It is very great for me because the reality of state of Israel, which the Europeans only know for the informative diaries or the newspapers, appears as a close and absolutly human reality, the reality of million people who looking for his place, exploring the whole state, the whole culture with the only aim to feel part of it. Katzir constructs an absolutely wonderful documentary and he demonstrates that when a man films with passion the deepest feelings are projected with force, and these feelings cross our hearts. Thank you Dan for open our eyes and give us one of the most beautiful portraits of the most wonderful countries of the world.

What we have here is a compelling piece of low budget horror with a relatively original premise, a cast that is filled with familiar faces AND one of the most convincing filming locations in the history of horror films. So...could anyone please tell me why this movie is so utterly underrated??? "Prison" is the Finnish director Harlin's American debut, which still counts as his best effort even though he went on making blockbuster hits like "Die Hard 2", "Cliffhanger" and "Deep Blue Sea". The story entirely takes place in an ancient and ramshackle Wyoming prison, re-opened for the cause of over-population in other, more modern state penitentiaries. Inside the former execution dungeons, the restless spirit of the electric chair's last victim still dwells around. The now promoted warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) was there already 40 years ago, when this innocent man was put to death, and the spirit still remembers his vile role in the unfair trial. It seems that the time for vengeance has finally arrived. Viggo Mortensen plays the good car thief who has to prevent an even larger body count and Chelsea Field is the humane social worker who slowly unravels the secrets from the past.<br /><br />"Prison" contains over half a dozen memorable gore sequences but it's the unbearably tense atmosphere that'll stick to you for certain! Unlike any other horror picture from that decade, "Prison" features an amazing sense of realism! By this, I refer to the authentic scenery and the mood inside the prison walls, of course, and not towards the supernatural murders that are being committed... even though these are genuinely unsettling as well. The film's best parts are images of realistic and tough prison-drama sequences combined with visual mayhem and shocking horror. The absolute best terror-moment (providing me with nightmares ever since I saw it at rather young age) focuses on a grizzly death-struggle involving barbed wire. Haunting!! The screenplay only suffers one flaw, but that's a common one...almost inevitable, I guess: clichés! The story introduces nearly every possible stereotype there is in a prison surrounding. We've got the ugly, fat pervert with his 'cute' boy-toy, the cowardly and racist guard avoids confrontation at all costs and – naturally – the old 'n wise black con who serves a lifetime (did I hear anybody yell the name Morgan Freeman?) Don't stare yourself blind on these clichés is my advise, as there are so many other elements to admire. The photography is dark and moist, the mystery is upheld long and successfully and the supportive inmate-roles of class B-actors are excellent (the fans will recognize Tom Everett, Tom 'Tiny' Lister and even immortal horror icon Kane Hodder). Forget about Wes Craven's god-awful attempt "Shocker" or the downright pathetic cheese-flick "the Chair". This is the only prison chiller worth tracking down! Especially considering Viggo Mortensen peaking popularity nowadays (I heard he starred in a successful franchise involving elves, Hobbits and other fairy creatures...) this true 80's horror gem oughts to get an urgent DVD-release!

I rented this type of "soft core" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as "Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the "Must be 18 to Rent" Sticker. I was looking for more "cheese" and less "cheesecake."<br /><br />First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with "actors" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever "actors" rehearse). In this movies seeing the "actors" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.<br /><br />Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video "erotic" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.<br /><br />I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.

I saw this movie the first time at about twelve o'clock on a Saturday evening. It really is the perfect time for this one. I have never, EVER seen a movie that was actually more predictable and drenched with stereotypes. If you want to see a thrilling action movie, don't watch it because you might lose the will to live halfway through. However, if you want a good laugh, please watch it! I even bought the Chuck Norris 3DVD collection thanks to my enjoyable Saturday night. What especially struck me is that évery scene that would be expensive to make was copy-pasted from a Discovery documentary or an old TV-special on the US Army. Furthermore I was amazed by the fact that they didn't put the slightest effort in making the production look real. Afghanistan is, as far as I can remember, nowhere near any sea and yet with a single click Deke escapes from the terrorists sand-castle with his jet-pack and is taken away by a submarine (probably Discovery). Later on in the movie, Deke throws an Islam terrorist against the wall. In the slow motion scene you can beautifully see the long hairs of the Korean stuntman flap in the air when smashed against the wall. Gotta love it. I recommend you watch it with some friends and a good amount of beer though, only then you'll understand why I've been mad enough to spend 6,99 euro's on the box.

I wanted to love this movie. How could I not love it? Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Stanley Donen; all icons in their own way. However, the train wreck that was Suzy Parker ruined the entire experience for me. Her acting was so appalling that I sat there with my jaw hanging open, not believing my eyes or ears. I could barely make it through one viewing, THAT'S how hideous she is in this.<br /><br />Cary? Gorgeous and in fine dramatic form. Jayne? Adorable, endearing, and obviously having a ball. The supporting cast does alright, and the city of San Francisco is captured in all its stunning, retro elegance.<br /><br />Then you see Suzy Parker attempting to speak her lines with a woodenness, a deadness, a cluelessness that simply defies belief. Who told this creature she could ACT?? Oy VEY, people.

If I have to give this movie a score on a linear scale, then I have to give it a low score 3/10.<br /><br />But it was entertaining, and there are several good things to say about the movie.<br /><br />The psychiatrist candidate James Bishop is assigned to St. Andrews Hospital for his resident, and is exited and eager to "change the world".<br /><br />From the beginning of the movie you know that the hospital is hiding an evil truth, but James thinks he can make a difference and doesn't recognise this evil. <br /><br />The story builds fairly well, you know all the time that there is a truth in what the patients are telling about some resident evil, and wonder when and how James will discover this. Also when the break comes, James is in a way hunted by the evil, and you feel some suspense until "the fight" is over.<br /><br />Add an innocent beautiful girlfriend that arrives at the worst possible time and other standard horror elements, and you get the picture.<br /><br />The character buildup is actually fairly good, you are introduced to most of the people that gets killed, some of them you "get to know".<br /><br />The film sets an unpleasant scene, this is also done fairly well. There are mysteries that are unveiled - in an acceptable way.<br /><br />The main character, James is very believable - the story about an eager student starting to work is good in this setting.<br /><br />What kills this movie is: * Stupid special effects - a modern version of "Plan 9 from outer space"-type bad (the evil monster looks like a red scarecrow) * Some bad acting (or probably very few takes when filming) - The main characters sometimes acts badly, and somtimes good. * The sound is at times very cheap.<br /><br />I kept thinking "I could make a movie like this with my home video camera" throughout the film.

The family happiness is crumbling when, the from the beginning rich father Ward (Michael Ontkean), gets poor and cannot support the family any longer. Then the mother Faye (Jaclyn Smith) has to take the role as the breadwinner in the family and starts to work in order to support the family and at the same time, periodically alone, has to manage the family life. Not always that good, but as good as she can. The family life hardly gets easier when the father learns that the son Lionel (Joe Flanigan "Stargate Atlantis") is gay and is living together with his lover John (Joel Gretsch "The 4400") also an old family friend, resulting in that the father makes clear to Lionel that he is no longer welcome in the family. Lionel is the one who meant the most to his sister Anne (Leslie Horan) during her up-bringing, since the family neglected her. Anne cannot stand the fact that their father have cut the cords with Lionel and therefore she run away from home. As this wasn't enough, the son Greg (Brian Krause "Charmed") enlists in the marines and is sent to war. The storyline in this film can on some occasions feel a bit thin, in spite of that it still has a lot of realism in it, which makes it well worth seeing. Since this film illustrates many sensitive relations and situations, I would believe that it is best appreciated by a mature audience even though it wouldn't hurt for teenagers to see it and get something to think about before adulthood.

Polanski returns to the themes of solitude and madness which he explored to such tremendous effect in Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, in The Tenant.<br /><br />The atmosphere is trademark Polanski - dark, brooding, unnerving - but there is something awkward about this movie and I am not sure whether or not it is deliberate.<br /><br />Sven Nykvist, who was responsible for some of Bergman's most beautiful films, doesn't quite do himself justice here. As his name was one of the things which really attracted me to this movie, I was a little disappointed in how few instances of truly impressive cinematography are in the film.<br /><br />The only thing that really lets the movie down is the acting. Polanski is certainly not a bad actor, but he seems to have bitten off more than he can chew with the difficult role of Trelkovsky. Some of the supporting cast are great, notably Melvyn Douglas as the landlord and Shelley Winters as the concierge, but others are weak and miscast. It is also hard to get past the fact that all these supposed Parisians have American accents.<br /><br />Quite unexpectedly, there are some fine moments of dark comedy in the film. Anyone who has seen The Fearless Vampire Killers knows that Polanski is certainly a good comedic actor. However, there are moments when it slips dangerously close to being a parody of itself. Trelkovsky's sudden (and somewhat unexplained) 'transformation' is more likely to raise giggles than eyebrows, which detracts from what should have been a powerful moment in his psycho-dramatic journey.<br /><br />All in all, The Tenant is an enjoyable and intriguing experience, if a little too languorous for its own good. There's a handful of exceptionally chilling moments and a consistently uncomfortable and foreboding atmosphere but this film, while being very good, does not quite hit the mark as successfully as it could have.<br /><br />Alas, at the end of the day, an 'okay' Polanski movie is still better than most other 'good' movies. Definitely worth a watch, just don't expect to be blown away.

This may not be one of the best movies ever made but overall it's a very enjoyable, light-hearted piece of froth in which everyone involved seems to be having a good time. Highly recommended for it's feel-good factor alone. OK, so Frank Sinatra's "acting" leaves a lot to be desired but his singing is a great redeeming feature and the songs fit in perfectly with the romantic atmosphere of the film. Sinatra went on to make many more films where his undoubted acting ability shone through but in this, his first venture into Hollywood, his voice, not his acting, is his main contribution to this movie. I've just watched it again on TV and it still lifts my mood as much as it did the first time I saw it many many years ago.

I don't quite get the rating for The Amati Girls and I think I was REALLY kind giving it a 4 out of 10. What could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes. There are so many clichés in that flick, the women's hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake. There's no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over-acting over any limits that it hurts. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's too fake-sad to really touch, so in my eyes it's just not good. Watching it I couldn't believe how something like that made it to my TV set in my living room in Switzerland. But.. maybe it still was OK and it just got lost in translation? Who knows. Definitely one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and this certainly not in a good way! Sorry.

These are one of the movies that don't require any brain or thinking, it's a very funny time pass which you forgot in the next hour or so. I was really surprised with John Abraham's acting he usually playing the gangster like character with the emotionless face,so from that to playing the complete opposite and does it successfully,by managing to shine amongst the comic geniuses such as Paresh Rawal and Akshaye Kumar. I was also quite surprised with the Akshaye's 3 girls because there roles don't require much talent but mostly moaning about Akshaye's dissapearence(to the other girls) i was surprised as they managed to establish and actual persona and you could differentiate between them which is a good thing ,also majority of songs are good,it is colourful and fun so on a boring Sunday evening this will sure lighten your mood.

A whole bunch of teenagers gather around to discuss their fears, but an uninvited guest has showed up and is killing everybody off.<br /><br />Probably the worst horror film of the 90's, Camp Blood (1999) is the only film that could challenge it for that title, has some of the dumbest characters and situations to ever grace a television screen. The so called surprise ending is awful, as is the rest of this film. Mildly entertaining on a sooo bad it is good level. My rating: 2 out of 10.

Good work by everyone, from scriptwriters, director, and cast; a lovely fun film that becomes believable for sentimental reasons only; a good film for television on those cloudy, cold wintry days when you just want to sit back and enjoy.

Overrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating "collectors action figurine"), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were "actual" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid.

I knew this movie wasn't going to be amazing, but I thought I would give it a chance. I am a fan of Luke Wilson so I thought it had potential. Unfortunately, a lot of the movie's dialog was very fake sounding and cheesy. I think that Aquafresh gave some money towards the production of the film because they were seriously dropping some hints throughout. There is a shot where the Aquafresh sign sticks out at you that you can't help but notice it. Maybe they should have focused on writing and acting more than how many times can we drop Aquafresh products in the movie without people getting annoyed. The movie had its moments, but I'm glad I didn't spend $9.50 to see it in the theater.

I have read the last comment made on this film and have to utterly and totally disagree with it.<br /><br />You see, I am of Portuguese nationality and even though this film may say little to someone coming from Boston, it surely says something to both Portuguese and Brazilian people, as well as immigrants everywhere.<br /><br />And why, you may wonder? Well, firstly, this film deals with two sibling nations: Portugal and Brazil. Brazil gained its independence in the early 19th century (by the hands of the heir to the Portuguese throne)and since then relations improved greatly. <br /><br />However, meaningful as this may be, there is still a lot of prejudice. Because of the economic climate in Brazil during the 1990's, immigration to Portugal grew massively. You see, Portugal is not only a country sharing a similar language, culture and beliefs as Brazil but is also a gateway to the rest of Europe. Some people were thus forced to make the decision to cross the Atlantic and look for a better life and Portugal was the first logical place to try to immigrate to. <br /><br />As it happens still with a lot of immigrants, they were paid averages below the minimum wage and were treated like "dirt" - only in this case, because the language is similar, they were constantly made aware of their status as immigrants.<br /><br />Another curious thing in this film is the idea it conveys of how a man so knowledgeable of the history of his own country still tried to make a quick buck through exporting coveted national resources. It is exactly people like this that keep Brazil in a constant state of arrested development, as the country is well endowed in natural resources and could easily climb the economic ladder should it be given a fair opportunity.<br /><br />In a sense, this goes to show how colonialism still exists - Pablo representing the exploited people, Igor the man whose status as a "nobleman" (or at least rich or "well off") is assured by the foreign colonialist power which is in turn represented by Kraft.<br /><br />If you have seen other films by Salles you will recognize this as a recurring topic - the struggle against an oppressing power. I do not mean to lecture or be patronising as to teach anyone history but I thought this film was, symbolically speaking, very powerful. I am not saying there wasn't room for improvement (as there always is) but I think the last comment written on it was not only narrow minded but hands down ignorant.<br /><br />One last thing to be said on this, I have to assume you have watched this film with the eyes of an "American film watcher". No harm intended by this remark but I mean "foreign" films cannot all be about "beautiful scenery" - Art deals with the problems of its time. You would not expect Otto Dix, for example, to paint all the lovely places in Bayern and the Black Forest... Why should you expect a film maker to focus exclusively on scenery when he feels there are more relevant issues to attend to?<br /><br />In a nutshell, do not judge films lightly and with only two or three criteria in scope. This film is very interesting, its photography is quite good and even the idea the black and white colouring conveys goes hand-in-hand with what it deals with. I believe the image is purposefully grainy... like reality, no? :)<br /><br />Watch it and reach your own conclusions...

I've been waiting since last October to see this film! (it was supposed to come out October '98) and now I've finally seen it I am not disappointed. Bloody marvellous! OK it was a tad slow in the beginning, but once it got going it's a very exciting nail-biting tense Robert Carlyle is so different from either Gaz in 'The Full Monty' and Begbie in 'Trainspotting' ) that it's hard to recognise him! And Johnny Lee Miller, no longer with his Sick Boy from 'Trainspotting' blond hair, plays his dashing gentlemen highway man with the right about of humour and sensitivity that it is easy to see why Liv Tylers Rebecca falls for him. A great film. As Hades in Disney's 'Hercules' would say: "Two thumbs way way up!!"

This is an excellent film dealing with a potentially exploitative subject with great sensitivity. Anne Reid, previously best known in the UK for her TV roles including 'Dinnerladies' (a Victoria Wood scripted series on in-company catering workers, if you're wondering), gives a performance of finely judged understatement as May, a late-60s bereaved mother of two chattering class adults in an inner-London borough. Her husband Toots (Peter Vaughan) dies on their visit to the male of the latter species (Bobby), and we see the pair being rather casually greeted by Bobby and his family. May's teacher daughter Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) lives nearby, however, and the relationship between May and Paula initially appears closer. Thus when May decides she cannot live in her own home and comes back to London, she is able to stay in Paula's house and do some child-minding of Paula's more appreciative offspring.<br /><br />It is on May's visits to Bobby's house that she embarks on an affair with Darren, a mid-30s friend of Bobby who is working on a house extension. In what may be the first mainstream British film to so portray it, it is May and not Darren (Daniel Craig*) who initiates the encounter, and, at least to begin with, it seems that the relationship is founded on mutual respect. There is no explicit sexual content (at least in the DVD I saw: differences in the IMDb cast list suggests the existence of other versions), and the physical basis of the affair is handled directly but not exploitatively. More strongly portrayed is the relationship between May and daughter Paula, a recent convert to 'therapy and self-exploration', who announces that mummy has never been supportive of her. Paula is also Darren's lover, and when she finds May's explicit but rather poor drawings of Darren and May together, things go downhill in dramatic but controlled fashion. Only in an English film, perhaps, could a daughter announce that she is going to hit her mother, politely ask her to stand up, and duly wallop her.<br /><br />In the mean time, May is being drawn into a putative relationship with a decent but older (of her own generation) member of Paula's writing group. The contrast between the ensuing unwanted intercourse and her affair with Darren is clearly made; it is at that point that May starts to acquiesce to Paula, and Darren's worm begins to turn (he reveals on cocaine that he may have been after her money, if not all along, but for some of the ride). So May finds herself superfluous to both of her children's needs, and finally does return home (but later leaves on a jet plane for pastures new).<br /><br />The film's strength is that it portrays with unflinching but sympathetic truth the nature of contemporary adult parent-sibling relationships, where bereavement may leave the surviving parent feeling more alone than if they had no-one to care for them. This is not new, but the openness of the portrayal of sexual need in the over-60s may well be. The darkness of the film's content, from a screenplay by Hanif Kureishi, stands in contrast to the way in which it is lit (it seems to be perpetual summer), and the overall mood is uplifting - it could so easily have been yet another piece set in a dour and rainy England. The ending is perhaps under-written, as we don't know where May is going or for how long - perhaps she's Shirley Valentine with a pension, she's certainly no Picasso. Anne Reid is, however, revealed as a fine actor whose professional life will surely have changed forever. Like Julie Andrews in Torn Curtain (said by Paul Newman), "There goes your Mary Poppins {read Dinnerladies} image for good".<br /><br />* Yes, he: announced Oct 2005 as the new James Bond.

The thing about calling "House of the Dead" the worst movie of all time is that it's really not. There are worse movies out there. I watch alot of Hong Kong ninja movies that are basically the result of an unfinished Japanese police drama having footage of ninjas inserted at the end to create something that could technically be called "a movie."<br /><br />House of the Dead is however one of the worst films I've ever seen at the theatres. Walking out half way through, I actually felt I was somewhat dumber for having set through 45 minutes of this piece of garbage.

i loved catcher in the rye, it happens to be my favorite book. JD salinger, the author of catcher, has the rights to the book and made it so not one person can make a movie about it with his permission.<br /><br />with that said, heres "united states of Leland." Beautiful movie with much meaning and depth in emotion. but a lot of it reminded me of catcher, almost too much reminded me of catcher. the few stories that Leland told in the movie such as visiting new york and his adventures were very similar to those of holden's in catcher, and the way Leland views people and emotions is also similar to Holden's, they both are simple and true to themselves and others. superior acting credited to don cheadle and Kevin spacy. great editing, all falls together perfectly, and loved the story all together. recommend as a buy or at least a rent. good movie.<br /><br />the only thing that it does drag at some points but makes up for it in the long run. give it time and appreciate a good movie.

Great cult flick for MST-3K types: Richard Boone is a mess -- bad hair, arthritis, even his dark glasses aren't right; about as good as a bad dino-flick can get... actually, that charging saber-toothed Styracosaurus was pretty cool -- maybe Spielberg should take a couple of notes from that one.

This movie was so bad it looked like a home movie. In one scene, the camera very slowly and gradually tilts down, then moves back up into place again. The sound is crackly, and occasionally fades out then in again. In another scene, the camera man is just visible in a mirror.<br /><br />Then came the scene with instructions how to put down a tent... which, believe me, went on for ages and was completely irrelevant to the plot. Most scenes dragged on with conversations that were not entirely relevant either. In my opinion these were just to fill out the movie and make it longer. Even with these scenes added it was very short.<br /><br />The only good thing about it was the severed head, which did look quite realistic.

First of all, the genre of this movie isn't comedy, it's more of a drama.<br /><br />I had low expectations on the movie, and still they didn't come up them. As some of the other reviews point out, there are some nice music in the movie. But if you want to listen to good music I suggest spend the time looking at some concert recording with Bon Jovi, or Mötley Crue, it'll be more quality time.<br /><br />Last, if you want to watch a GOOD movie in this rock'n'roll genre, I recommend "Almost Famous".

I had the privilege to watch Mar Adentro last Friday, and I am still shocked by its beauty, the powerful work of every single actor and actress and Amenabar's unbelievable ability to narrate the story of Ramón Sampedro, who was well known in Spain for asking for a legal euthanasia, lost the court cause, and eventually died in front of a camera drinking a glass with poison, freezing all our hearts with his determination not to go on living forever immobilized because of an accident. <br /><br />Before watching the movie I was already mesmerized by the strong symbology in its title, which I would translate as "Into the Sea" and not as some suggest "Out to sea", and which is taken from an original poem written by the man this story is about. Then I watched the movie. Oh my friends. This is Cinema with a capital C. The narration flows to take you to the heart of every single character: Sampedro, reincarnated in a Bardem that you forget from the very beginning, is in the center as a man full of sense of humour and full of hope, and his hope is to die, because for him, the life he is living is not worthy to be lived. The rest of the characters but one dance around him and respect his decision because they see him as a human independent being (forgetting he depends on the others for everything), even though they do love him so much. And this is what the movie is about: love. You can feel it, you can breathe it in the skin of every character. You witness the growing of the feeling within three women who meet him in the movie: Gené, the member of the association that defend his right to die with dignity, his friend, her story in the movie is the hope for us the lucky ones that can live a normal life in this world; Rosa, the woman who meets a good man in the middle of her list of broken relationships and pain in the hands of all the men who used her and despised her; Julia, the woman who shares a tragic destiny with Ramón, and eventually acts in a way we cannot but only understand.<br /><br />However, before meeting these women Ramón knew what was love like, because you cannot meet him without loving him, and he is deeply loved by his abnegated family: Four characters unique in their humbleness and bravery, each with their own thoughts about his decision, each thought respectable in its own way, because the terrible thing about this story is that nobody is to blame for what happened. That, sadly, life sometimes is that terrible. From this familiar quartet I specially liked Mabel Rivera's work as Ramón's sister in law, Manuela: a terrific performance.<br /><br />I would like to draw attention to three episodes that are for me the best climax points I have seen in a long time, and if you haven't seen the movie don't read this, pass over this paragraph and read again from the next one starting "Mar adentro", let the movie show its secrets to you. The episodes I loved were: 3. The best love scene I have seen in a movie, when I really felt love invading the screen, is when Ramón dreams awake that he is flying to meet Julia in the beach and they kiss each other. 2. Gené speaking by phone with Ramón, the day before he is going to do it, and he tells her it is better they say goodbye at that very moment, not to put her in trouble with the authorities. And then she knows it is the last time they are going to talk, and she has fought for his right to die... but she does not want to lose him, because she loves him as a true friend, and even though she is respecting his decision at all cost. 1. The best. A young Ramón in the beach, looking at his girlfriend under the sun, jumping to the water from the rocks to a sea that is retreating. We see the crash, we hear his voice recalling what happened and claiming he should have died that very moment. The face of Bardem, face downward, shown to us from the bottom. And the hand of a friend who pulls him from the forehead and brings him back to a life that will be a hell for him in the next 30 years. There are many others, like the impressive ending, in spite of the fact that in Spain we know too well what Ramon did.<br /><br />Mar adentro did not deceive me, Amenabar never does, but this time he has to thank the actors that took part in the project, and who maybe took it personally, because this is not just a movie, it is an elegy to a man who died alone when he was asking to die "legally", which meant for him, as Bardem pointed out, dying with the people he loved and who loved him around.

The sun should set on this movie, forever.<br /><br />It goes on forever (which isn't usually a bad thing - The English Patient, Schindler's List) but is SO tedious. The aging of the actors is unbelievable and so is the drawn-out never-ending story line which really seems to go nowhere.<br /><br />In short, a waste of talent and film.

Terry Cunningham directs this Sci-Fi Network original. All is not well in Washington state and Oregon; volcanic eruptions and earthquakes threaten to drop most of the Pacific Rim in the ocean. Trying to keep the world from plunging in ecological havoc, a crack team of scientists led by Dr. Jake Rollins(Luke Perry)take a massive earth drilling vehicle called "The Mole" to chew its way to the Earth's fiery core to avert impending doom. Technical dialog doesn't really help or speed this movie along. The acting is lame, but then Perry has always been laid back. You can only blame him for taking part. Others in the cast: Michael Dorn, Adam Frost and Michael Teigen

I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. "Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah." OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.<br /><br />Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, "OMG! I didn't mean to!" Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims "haven't been stalked like this before..." (Scarecrow's official tag line)<br /><br />To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.<br /><br />This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times.

Deep SH.. is more like it! The eels are just cartooned in over the film. Think "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" meets "Leviathan". Very tacky.<br /><br />No character or relationship development. So called "romantic" scenes very corny and predictable. An interesting idea, but a poorly written script and LOUSY special effects make this a definite must-miss!

"Dressed to Kill" is Brian DePalma's best film, an absolute thrill ride of suspense, humor and style that remains unrivaled today. DePalma has a bum rap in Hollywood, as most people claim that he rips off Alfred Hitchcock. He does not. Hitchcock could only dream of what DePalma shows in his thrillers.<br /><br />Sadly, the original uncut version of "Dressed to Kill" is no longer available on video. The current copy released by Goodtimes is the Jack Valenti approved R rated cut. But some copies of DePalma's original cut still exist. It is the one distributed by Warner Home Video, in both a green cardboard box with Angie Dickinson on the cover, or in a black clamshell case with the theatrical poster on silver lining. These are the ones to get, if you can find a copy. I have the green one and it is among my treasured possessions.<br /><br />Anyway, back to the story. Dickinson plays Kate Miller, a sexually frustrated wife who is being treated by Dr. Robert Elliott ( Michael Caine) for her obsessive fantasies. While on a trip to the museum (a real tour-de-force for DePalma in terms of camera work and suspense), <br /><br />Miller is picked up by a stranger. You can pretty much guess what happens to her, since the ads and box art give away the story. But there are a few complications. A hooker (Nancy Allen) is the sole witness to the murder. Kate Miller's son Peter (Keith Gordon) is a teenage genius determined to solve the crime. And Dr. Elliott's answering machine has a certain message on it...about a missing razor...<br /><br />I'm not spoiling the film at all for you since what I have described above takes place within the opening half hour and DePalma's biggest surprises are reserved for the last hour. This film is explicit, however, enough for Valenti (head of the MPAA) to demand cuts in the film. What surprises me is what cuts he wanted. Several cuts in the opening shower scene and one or two slashing scenes and some of Nancy Allen's dialogue (Valenti wanted "cock" changed to "bulge"). This is a film that is very violent and bloody, yet the objections are to sexual content. I'd love to hear Valenti's explaination at how seeing two women in a tender love scene in "Lost and Delirious" is somehow more damaging to a young mind than Arnold Schwarzenegger blowing away people with a chain gun. It just isn't fair.<br /><br />What makes "Dressed to Kill" so good is that not only are the technical credits first rate, but the performances are very good as well. Michael Caine, who was in a lot of crap in this time period, gives one of his best performances as the doctor. Angie Dickinson is better than usual, possibly because she actually has a strong role here. Nancy Allen adds this to her range of performances that has her pegged as one of the most underrated and overlooked actresses in the world. Keith Gordon is wonderful as the genius and i loved all those inventions of his.<br /><br />DePalma is one of our best directors who has never received the recognition he deserved. The recent joke of the AFI 100 Best Thrillers list showed that very few people actually know what a thriller is. If they were to actually open their eyes for once, they would see that DePalma has staked his career in thrillers and is actually the best craftsman. This is even better than "Psycho". It's a shame that very few actually know that.<br /><br />**** out of 4 stars

I never dreamed when I started watching this DVD that I would be totally mesmerized by it within minutes. The story was completely absorbing and entertaining. The acting was superb. The biggest surprise of all was how I would be so completely enchanted by the love these two young women radiated across the screen. Their initial physical encounter for me was by far the most tender, romantic, delightful, vicariously enthralling love scenes I have ever witnessed on film. I literally stopped breathing. I could not believe the chemistry between the two actresses. With no nudity or graphic sex, they conveyed more passion and titillation than any American production could ever hope to evince. Bravo to the author, the screenwriter, the director and the cast.

This movie proves that good acting comes from good direction and this does not happen in Ask the Dust. Colin Farrell is usually a fine actor but in this he is juvenile. Donald Sutherland comes across as an amateur. Why? Because the script is awful, the adaptation is awful and the actors seem bored and half hearted. The atmosphere of the movie is bad - I could only think when it would finish and I turned it off half way. The director has done a very poor job and even though I have not read the novel it is certainly a missed chance. The atmosphere this film is trying to evoke and the message and storyline never reaches the audience. In one word, it is a TERRIBLE film.

Talking about competition features at the Split Film festival, we have titles from all over the world. China, Korea, Canada, USA and Australia and many of these stories are indicating that the world is really valley of tears. Modern love...thats for sure. <br /><br />In that movie by Alex Frayne, two younger married people and their boy are traveling from town to the coast to visit the grave and house of the man's uncle who raised him a long time ago and who died in mysterious circumstances. The coastal village seems like something in an American horror film where the village is bizarre and people are uncommon mutants. But episodes in Alex Frayne's pastorella can't be described as horror in the normal way. In fact this is an extreme interesting drama where we are seeing relationships and horror through flashbacks and much more. In this story and through obviously psychological facets of the actors we are shown a peep show of film some charmingly eccentric Australian film-making. Thus is the the case of Frayne. Always something new and fresh. Visual intelligence and unique sensibility of some Australian directors is astonishing good. Frayne's movie is super. There is something in the Australian landscape that shows their movies so special as we have see in FRAYNE's Modern Love and in RAY Lawrence movies Lantana and Jindabyne.<br /><br />It seems it will be the same in future titles of Alex Frayne.

Who gave these people money to make a movie? There was nothing funny about it. The fact that the farting dog was the funniest thing about this piece of sickness says it all. First of all, it has nothing to do with Christmas, it just took the name and counted on all those people who liked the Chevy Chase original. They took Randy 'I have no talent, I m just a fat and sweaty pig' Quaid (the only wrong thing about part 1) and made a 'movie' about him...There are only morons in his family, but not the 'aren't they cute' kinda moronic, but the 'don t touch me' kinda moronic. Watching this pile of dirt helps you hope that everyone who takes part in it DIES! They didn't even bother to get the effects in order...when they re on the boat, the only thing that moves is the fake background...when pigface Quaid is in the water you can tell by the lighting that it's in a studio. This movie was sexist (uncle Nick), racist (uncle Nick) and should never have been made..never...throwing the money into a volcano would have had so much more use.<br /><br />Well I hope I reached some of you...Nobody warned me and now I m scarred for life Merry F*cking Christmas

Karloff and Lugosi - Together again! This is one of those films that casual fans will pass over and tend not to appreciate as much. It's not an all-out horror film like the duo's previous two hits, The Black Cat and The Raven. But, it is very worthy of both's talents and is a fun film when re-visited.<br /><br />The Invisible Ray was directed by Lambert Hillyer, a director who mainly made westerns, but curiously in these final days of the Laemmles' reign at Universal, he found himself helming this and the Laemmles' final horror film, Dracula's Daughter. Both are crisp, clean-cut fantasies that are very light on horror content despite the fantastic elements.<br /><br />Just as Lugosi went wild in The Raven, much needs to be said of Karloff's hamming in The Invisible Ray. The one aspect of the story that is particularly unsatisfying is that Karloff's character, Rukh, acts so madly before he is poisoned by Radium X, that there really isn't much of a change once he starts glowing. This is very similar to the complaint people have about Jack Nicholson in The Shining - He's basically a loony right from the start. There isn't any real transformation. Same here. Halfway through Karloff simply has an added purpose for revenge in his mind. I still enjoyed his performance, though, just as I did Lugosi's over-the-top antics in The Raven.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Lugosi completely surprises you and gives a restrained, and thoughtful turn as Rukh's rival in science, Dr. Benet. Lugosi also has some of the best lines in the film, including a memorable warning to the police trying to catch Rukh, of which I am in alignment with horror film writer John Soister on - "And if he (Rukh) touches anyone?" the inspector inquires. Lugosi hesitatingly replies, in a way that only Lugosi could deliver, "They die". Just as Lugosi could be so off, he could also be more perfect than any actor. This is one of those moments.<br /><br />Therefore, Karloff and Lugosi's interactions are all very good as we get the mad antics of Karloff pared off against the cool logic of Lugosi. Karloff would go on to play similar mad scientists many times, however, one wishes Lugosi would have gotten to play more straight roles like this one. He only had one more chance (Ninotchka).<br /><br />The Invisible Ray is a fun film, and a real treat to the true Karloff and Lugosi fans. It is one of those films that improves on each viewing, not because it is a masterpiece, but because of the charisma and talent of its' stars and how this story complements the darker, more horrific pairings they had. The special effects, by the always innovative John Fulton, are terrific and the supporting actors are all adequate. Frances Drake looks as beautiful as she did in Mad Love and plays a strong woman, something seldom seen in classic horror films. The scene in the end when Karloff stalks her and she doesn't scream is one of the most haunting moments of the film. A terrific, fun film!

I do not know if this movies problems are more the fault of Direction or Script. As you will see in many reviews the editing style is way overdone. It is absolutely distracting and without substance, which could be considered a good thing if you look at some of the quotes from the movie. I do not write many reviews here, but felt this movie was so awful that it deserved comment. Movies like this erode at Movie making as an Art form. Movies like this one show more and more clearly that the current Reality focus in cinema is revealing the quality of the characters behind them. People hone there craft, there 5 senses, and there business sense - overlooking there own inner life. However I do not put blame on them, it is more and more the unfortunate condition of this age - qualified by films like this one. But by proxy these Manufacturers I would dare not call Artists vomit there lack of inner life or regard onto the screen - diffusing it to everyone. A story of bounty hunters, guns guns and more guns, heavy handed flaunting of sex - for the oh so popular actress (did they write the lap dance scene after they signed her?), over saturated, over exaggerated, one liners, non-linear plots. All different and yet all the same. Annoying overwhelming music to push the emotion down your throat. A story? a development of character? or just withheld, missing information, revealed at the end to create the *effect* of a story - as if one took place. It altogether lacks anything remotely resembling subtlety. It is a caricature of stereotypes and genre. Where are the films with Awareness? What about subtlety of sound and music that you are not even aware is there? What about the depth of a look? What about editing with a point about mind and consciousness? yes even in action films this can happen. Sure they have honed a craft; but what use is it without soul or wisdom? of insight into the human condition? Can the people who commented and said that this is an apogee of art, or compare this to Picasso and others - I say put this next to Gandhi or the Godfather, even the original trilogy of star wars or the lord of the rings; then look me in the face and say it again. It is a good crew, but they need some help with depth and story. I hope they get it because I like the crews previous work. better luck next time.

When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.<br /><br />"POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.<br /><br />I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film.

I'll be honest with you...I liked this movie. It's a great zombie flick that is packed with action, original ideas, good acting, but is also packed with bad Zombie effects. Part IV, entitled "After Death" is also good. I would recommend this movie to horror fans everywhere.<br /><br />10 out of 10<br /><br />Fans of Horror Movies like this should Check out Puppet Master, Skinned Alive, Slumber Party Massacre, Sleep Away Camp, and other Full Moon Pictures flicks. For other recommendations, check out the other comments I have sent in by clicking on my name above this comment section.

this was the most costly film, when produced. Sir Alexander Korda and H.G. Wells were both distressed by its poor ratings---for good reason. it was and remains far ahead of its time. aside from the seemingly poor direction, probably editing, at the very beginning, the work moves along to a stunning conclusion.<br /><br />whether its Sir Ralph Richardson's 'Boss' role, or even better, his wife's, Sir Cedric's, as adversary to space-faring, Raymond Massey's 'John Cabal' center role---all deliver mind-boggling performances.<br /><br />the scene with mr. Korda's incomparable set, of the small girl-child, running out to an absolutely 'never-to-be-matched' scene, commenting 'Life just keeps getting lovelier and lovelier'? that swiftly brings tears to any parent/grandparent. this is not a film for the young--unless 'experienced' and rather those who have seen 'the horror' it opposes.<br /><br />sure, the 'phony-parachuting', looks hokey---while using a 'magnetic-cannon', now termed 'mass-driver' may be viewed as ridiculous, vs. rockets---give Sir Korda a break--Mr. Wells made that choice. and at +/- $8 million, this film went way beyond 'over-budget'---so he concentrated on what he could manage.<br /><br />the true power of this Greatest of cinema rests in 'John Cabal's' final statement of human destiny---his friend 'Passworthy' doubts the wisdom of space-faring, saying, 'We're such little animals.' John Cabal's proper response is,(paraphrased) 'Yes, little animals, and if that is all we are, we must live and die as such.' they are standing under a large astronomical telescope. he sweeps his hand over the night sky. 'Yet we may have all the Universe, or nothing.'---then the final chorus breaks in---'Which shall it be?'---this is not 'Star Wars', 'Blade Runner'---anything you may consider 'Great'---this is the Real Thing.<br /><br />i remind all of Steven Hawking's most recent address, upon his latest 'Medal of Honor'---'Humanity must leave Earth, or die.'---the very core of this work---i love 'standard entertainment'---yet this 'relic', for the wise viewer, offers far more. 'Which Shall It Be?' be in the proper 'mood'---whatever that takes---this will take your breath away---i 'guarontee'---overall, for humanity? the most significant of cinema. <br /><br />since posting, i note many have commented on the poor 'media-quality' of 'surviving' examples. in the 80's i developed a 'proprietary' 'colorization' process which required a 'clean' original. this led me to Michael Korda, who sadly noted all were gone---so we must relish what remains---'sad but true?'

This movie is horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it.

Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.<br /><br />This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).<br /><br />Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.

I haven't read this book, but all through the movie I was awestruck with only one thought in my head: This is so Vonnegut. I have never seen an author, all of the intelligence and life behind the workings of a novel, translated so well to film. This movie had the same complexities found in Vonnegut's novels: the jokes were often meaningful and symbolic, and the dramatic events and symbols were often also jokes.<br /><br />Campbell was also a very Vonnegut character, portrayed perfectly by Nick Nolte. He had all of the earmarks of a Vonnegut "hero": lack of concern for political boundaries, ironic dark humor giving way to dumb inactivity in response to stress, and an unwillingness to push his version of reality on those around him.<br /><br />Overall, I was constantly surprised and impressed as I watched this movie. It was the same feeling I had reading "Cat's Cradle," my first Vonnegut novel, as if the most perfectly oddball thing that could happen, he thought of THAT, and he made it real and important. Yes, he has nothing but army surplus "White Christmas" albums. So it goes!

A well put together entry in the serial killer genre that unfortunately gets mired down in its own pretentiousness to be really satisfying. Willem Dafoe is superb as a NYC detective trying to track down what appears to be a copycat using the same Renaissance art-related killing techniques used in a series of murders he solved years earlier. Scott Speedman is Dafoe's junior partner and they have pretty good chemistry (at least for a while). Other characters pop up to conveniently tie the two cases together. Clea Duval is the friend of an earlier victim and Peter Stormare is some sort of art broker/mentor to Dafoe...that's a bit hard to take, although Stormare is, of course, never dull. The film's ending is particularly disappointing. Look fast for Deborah Harry as Dafoe's less than forthcoming neighbor.

Keep in mind I'm a fan of the genre but have only recently seen this film for the first time. How I've overlooked it all this time is a wonder to me. To me this is a better film then the much lauded "High Noon". It's a great western with excellent acting and a great story. The DVD is in beautifull black and white with outstanding cinematography. If you like westerns or James Stewart this film is not to be missed.

I must have seen this movie about four or five times already, and it gets better with each viewing. Suffice it to say: This is the best film I've ever seen. And I think I've seen a lot.<br /><br />But I've always wondered why this film got so shunned in some reviews or ratings. For example, take the IMDb Top 250. Why does it rank only at #216 (as of today)? Surely, the answer's not in the film itself (because that is nothing but flawless), but in its reception. The film caused controversy in its portrayal of compassion for a convicted murderer and its anti-death penalty attitude. And so, obviously, the more conservative-minded user probably didn't like the film (as you can see from some of the other comments). So DEAD MAN WALKING gets a ranking that's nothing but ridiculous in relation to its quality. Those people didn't understand what the film wanted to say, and maybe they didn't WANT to understand, being pro death penalty. So now I get it: It's all political. You're pro death penalty- you don't like (and therefore don't want to hear) what the film has to say.<br /><br />I'm truly sorry there are still so many people out there who simply tune out when a new perspective questions their beliefs.<br /><br />Mr. Robbins, your movie's issue split people's opinions. Some reconsidered their point-of-view, some simply didn't listen, but you made a very important point. Your movie will probably never show up on any "TOP 100 MOVIES OF ALL TIME"-list, but it'll be remembered, long after films like Braveheart or Babe or Apollo 13 (all of which were unjustly preferred over your film at the Oscars 1996) are forgotten. Congratulations, Mr. Robbins, and thank you for this important piece of filmmaking.

Gung Ho is one of those movies that I never get tired of watching. Michael Keaton has always been a favorite of mine, & he is absolutely hilarious in this movie. Matching him step for step is Gedde Watanabe. The two of them work wonderfully together. Although this movie is a comedy, I also like how it shows Hunt (Keaton) & Kazihiro (Watanabe) struggling in their roles as the leaders of their respective groups. They both try so hard to keep the peace, & then they finally get into a fight (which is hysterical to watch). First, they're both on the floor. Then Hunt jumps on a chair. Kazihiro jumps on the desk. Hunt jumps on the desk with him. The fight then spills out from the office into the factory. I love that after they are separated by the workers, you can tell that they both feel bad for letting things get so out of hand. Also, there is a scene where you can see the influence that Hunt has had on Kazihiro. He is at his house & his boss from Japan arrives & says he would like to visit the factory tomorrow: <br /><br />Kazihiro: Tomorrow not good day. Sakamoto: Why not? Kazihiro: Factory is locked & we can't find key.<br /><br />Tell me you can't picture Michael Keaton saying something like that!<br /><br />I guess I really like this movie because it is genuinely funny, & also shows how people that are radically different can not only learn from each other, but become good friends as well.

This is an awesome Amicus horror anthology, with 3 great stories, and fantastic performances!, only the last story disappoints. All the characters are awesome, and the film is quite chilling and suspenseful, plus Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are simply amazing in this!. It's very underrated and my favorite story has to be the 3rd one "Sweets To The Sweet", plus all the characters are very likable. Some of it's predictable, and the last story was incredibly disappointing and rather bland!, however the ending was really cool!. This is an awesome Amicus horror anthology, with 3 great stories, and fantastic performances, only the last story disappoints!, i say it's must see!.<br /><br />1st Story ("Method for Murder"). This is an awesome story, with plenty of suspense, and the killer Dominic is really creepy, and it's very well acted as well!. This was the perfect way to start off with a story, and for the most part it's unpredictable, plus the double twist ending is shocking, and quite creepy!. Grade A<br /><br />2nd Story. ("Waxworks"). This is a solid story all around, with wonderful performances, however the ending is quite predictable, but it's still creepy, and has quite a bit of suspense, Peter Cushing did an amazing job, and i couldn't believe how young Joss Ackland was, i really enjoyed this story!. Grade B<br /><br />3rd Story ("Sweets to the Sweet"). This is the Best story here, as it's extremely creepy, and unpredictable throughout, it also has a nice twist as well!. Christopher Lee did an amazing job, and Chloe Franks did a wonderful job as the young daughter, plus the ending is quite shocking!. I don't want to spoil it for you, but it's one of the best horror stories i have seen!. Grade A+<br /><br />4th Story ("The Cloak"). This is a terrible story that's really weak and unfunny Jon Pertwee annoyed me, however the ending surprised me a little bit, and Ingrid Pitt was great as always, however it's just dull, and has been done before many times, plus where was the creativity??. Grade D<br /><br />The Direction is great!. Peter Duffell does a great job here, with awesome camera work, great angles, adding some creepy atmosphere, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!.<br /><br />The Acting is awesome!. John Bryans is great here, as the narrator, he had some great lines, i just wished he had more screen time. John Bennett is very good as the Det., and was quite intense, he was especially good at the end!, i liked him lots. Denholm Elliott is excellent as Charles, he was vulnerable, showed fear, was very likable, and i loved his facial expressions, he rocked!. Joanna Dunham is stunningly gorgeous!, and did great with what she had to do as the wife, she also had great chemistry with Denholm Elliott !. Tom Adams is incredibly creepy as Dominic, he was creepy looking, and got the job done extremely well!. Peter Cushing is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is likable, focused, charming, and as always, had a ton of class! (Cushing Rules!!). Joss Ackland is fantastic as always, and looked so young here, i barely recognized him, his accent wasn't so thick, and played a different role i loved it! (Ackland rules). Wolfe Morris is creepy here, and did what he had to do well.Christopher Lee is amazing as always and is amazing here, he is incredibly intense, very focused, and as always had that great intense look on his face, he was especially amazing at the end! (Lee Rules!!). Chloe Franks is adorable as the daughter, she is somewhat creepy, and gave one of the best child performances i have ever seen!, i loved her.Nyree Dawn Porter is beautiful and was excellent as the babysitter, i liked her lots!. Jon Pertwee annoyed me here, and was quite bland, and completely unfunny, he also had no chemistry with Ingrid Pitt!. Ingrid Pitt is beautiful , and does her usual Vampire thing and does it well!. <br /><br />Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out of 5

The poster who called this "Plotless and pointless" literally took the words I would have used in my subject line. The only thing I'd add is "passionless." For a film made by a real life married couple and featuring lots of graphic sex scenes this movie manages to make what should be a sultry situation into one beyond ice cold. Dafoe and Colagrande look bored during the sex scenes, and the viewer might as well take a Valium and have done with it. Also, please, the women in the audience have seen WAY too many used tampons in their time, and any guy who is turned on by seeing Willem Dafoe pull a bloody tampon out of his wife's vagina really needs to get therapy.<br /><br />I think the key to the film (if there is one) is the restaurant scene where a waiter explains to the perpetually sleepy-eyed Dafoe what a "deconstructed jambalaya" is. (All the ingredients of the dish still separate rather than simmered together.) This movie is a "deconstructed thriller". All the elements are there: spooky, isolated house, dead spouse,creepy violins on the score, weirdo caretaker who comes and goes as he pleases, auto accident deaths and near deaths, characters with a secret past. Basically every thriller cliché you can think of, but NOTHING comes together. Everything just sits there and never meshes into a coherent plot or even an artsy mood piece. At the restaurant, Dafoe passes on the "deconstructed jambalaya". Prospective renters of this mess would do well to leave this deconstructed thriller on the video store shelf.

This movie was beautiful and touching. It touched a place deep inside me and I'm not sure why. I am a happily married woman and I've never had lesbian tendencies, but my, this movie almost made it something I crave. The choreography, the storyline, the dialog... the movie was a work of art. <br /><br />The synopsis without spoilers is that a woman gymnast unsatisfied with her life and looking for... something, anything. She is with a man who does not want a baby, but she does. He's not mean to her, but he doesn't treat her the way a woman should be treated either... I guess he doesn't really appreciate her. All these years she has stayed in shape and decides to go back to the gym. She meets another woman during her acrobatic training and an intimate and beautiful relationship unfolds. Throughout the movie she has another woman friend that she trained with in her younger years, and they have stayed close friends.<br /><br />The relationship that unfolds is.. I don't know quite the word, but very understanding, comfortable, intimate but sexy... something that could only exist between two women. The kind of relationship that could really bring meaning back into your life. Someone that makes you feel special, exciting, beautiful, confused even.<br /><br />The relationship with her close friend is beautiful in an equally different way. They have a close and intimate relationship. Her friend showed me what a true friend really is. Someone who is understanding, easy going, REAL, fun to be with, someone who is there for you no matter what. Someone who is supportive, and you can huddle with and tell your deepest secrets. Someone who shares your past but does not share your secrets. <br /><br />The story is simple in the fact that it was not overdone, but not underdone in any way. It leaves a lot of sensual imagery to capture it's moments. The dancing and choreography was stunning. I could watch it over and over. The way the artist captured the main character's feelings and emotions was. The dancing and the imagery was very dazzling and mesmerizing to watch. What a cozy a wonderful story! I fell in love with this movie. If you have a chance, rent this and watch it!!

I thought that i wrote a comment on this movie before, but i can't find it on here. anyway, i am writing it again. I accidentally found this movie from my college's library collections. It was free to watch, so why not.<br /><br />I am certainly glad that I watched it. I love this movie. I have seen a few Russian movies before, most of them have serious topics. I am surprised that this was one a good comedy. I had a great laugh while watching it. and this is a movie that i want to buy. this thing is so funny. and they are not just silly funny, those plots were very original, and well thought, so they don't seem to be silly at all. I am surprised that this movie didn't attract many viewers. This is a classic that you can watch it over and over.<br /><br />those actors were also very authentic, their acting are real, not faked. if you haven't watched it, go get a copy soon! definitely recommended.

What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.

One of the many speculations about Y2K was that the world was going to end at the stroke of midnight on December 31, 1999. In `The Book Of Life,' writer/director Hal Hartley takes a look at the possible ramifications of a new millennium Armageddon, beginning with the return of Jesus to Earth on New Year's Eve, ‘99. The story examines the task of the Son of God, who must open the remaining three of the seven seals contained in the Book of Life (now contained in a Mac laptop computer), in which there is also the names of the one-hundred and forty-four thousand good souls who will be spared on the last day. Jesus (Martin Donovan), along with Magdalena (P.J Harvey), arrives in New York City to make the preparations necessary for carrying out his Father's will, but he begins to have second thoughts; must he judge the living and the dead? Do they deserve what must befall them? It is a cup He would prefer not to embrace at this particular moment, which gives encouragement to Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan) who fears that the fruit of all his hard labor is about to be washed away at midnight, for he can only continue his work so long as there are people around who cling to their pitiful hopes and dreams. An artistically rendered, high concept film, Hartley presents the story in an intelligent, thought provoking manner, taking great care in dealing with the sensitive subject matter so as to make it inoffensive even to the most ardent fundamentalist. The dialogue between Jesus and Satan is intriguing and stimulating, as is the effect of their presence upon those they encounter during their corporeal stay in the city. It's an engrossing meditation on the spiritual side of Man's fragile existence and a contemplation of that which has been prophesied in the Revelations of St. John in the Apocalypse, the last Book of the New Testament. And there is logic in Hartley's approach to the Second Coming; he maintains the aesthetic of the contemporary setting while employing altered film speeds which visually give the film an ethereal quality. Christ inconspicuously wears a suit and tie, effectively blending in with the populace, while Satan's attire is a bit more casual, his appearance somewhat scruffy; he sports a bruise above his left eye. Donovan is well cast as Jesus, lending a benevolent mien and a sense of restrained urgency to his character that is very effective. It is, of course, a unique portrayal of The Saviour, and possibly the best since Max von Sydow's in `The Greatest Story Ever Told.' He successfully conveys a feeling of inner peace and tranquility, of serenity, that is the essence at the very core of the character. And Ryan is thoroughly engaging in his role of the Prince of Darkness; he has a distinct manner of speech and a resonant quality to his voice that make him absolutely mesmerizing to watch. His eyes are darkly penetrating, a trait he uses effectively with furtive glances and captivating stares. He's the guy who could sell you anything in exchange for your soul before you ever knew what hit you. It's a memorable performance that contrasts so well with Donovan's portrayal of Jesus. The supporting cast includes Martin Pfeffercorn (Martyr), Miho Nikaido (Edie), Dave Simonds (Dave), D.J. Mendel (Lawyer), James Urbaniak (True Believer), Katreen Hardt (Lawyer's Assistant) and Anna Kohler (Hotel Clerk). In his own, inimitable style, with `The Book Of Life,' Hartley has crafted a perspective of the last days that is interesting, entertaining and truly unique. He has a way of capturing life as it is just off center, a method which works especially well with a film like this. Comparatively short for a feature film (running time of 63 minutes), it nevertheless is one of Hartley's best, and more than worth the price of admission. It's a film that will stay with you and perhaps make you think about some things you may have tucked away in a corner of your mind for later. And that is part of the attraction of this film; it makes you realize that `later' most likely is now. I rate this one 9/10.

First, I realize that a "1" rating is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst. This movie gets that from me because, as one reviewer points out, it's not bad in a self-aware, over-the-top sort of way that might allow it to have some comic or cult value. It simply misses its mark on every count. **Contains possible spoilers** The dialog is completely disingenuous. The continuity is so deliberate it's painful. Daniel just finishes speaking of his lost love, and with his final word the flamenco dancers start. The mock-shock of what's her name (see? I don't even remember her character's name, let alone the name of the forgettable actress) when her husband (the Baldwin) first tells her that her friend is the bad guy. The car and the motorcycle chases did all the right things. Vegetable carts gone flying. Cars crashing into each other. Motorcycles going down the stairs. People nearly being hit, but remarkably, no one is. Oh, that's right... except for the one guy who has been stabbed several times, is obviously stumbling along the curb with knife wounds, and an approaching car apparently didn't notice him there. Hmmm. <br /><br />It's becoming more and more remarkable to me that movies like this can be made. There is so much pressure in the film industry to make money, you'd think that someone in Hollywood would think of making good films worth seeing. Now there's a novel idea. <br /><br />My suggestion: don't see this film. Don't rent the DVD. Don't watch it on cable. There are lots of other things you could be doing that will leave you feeling more satisfied.

An old intellectual talks about what he considers art in movies. You get your Hitchcock, your Chaplin, your Bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies. To disguise that he has no clue what is going on in cinemas these days, he throws in The Matrix.<br /><br />But it's not only the same lame film-as-art speech all over again. This speech is reduced to outdated psychological platitudes: it-ego-super ego, anal phase, sexual insufficiency. <br /><br />It is garnished with the cheesy effect of having Zizte edited into the movies he is taking about. For someone who is supposed to know much about movies, his own is, cinematographicly speaking: yeiks.<br /><br />To put it in Zizek's own words - I saw 5\-\!7 on the screen, last night, or in the words of a great movie maker:<br /><br />Mr. (Zizek), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you (two) points (only), and may God have mercy on your soul.

We're in a not so distant future, globalization seems to have reached a high point, languages mixes with each other (although English prevails over the rest), races have merged, human clonation is a fact, and all the territory seems to have been divided in two zones: the one for the valid and the one for the non-valid... a brave new world (in Aldous Huxley's style) in which people are genetically filed and blood relationships are strictly forbidden (for health reasons –that's the Code 46 of the title-). In such environment two souls that are destined not to meet fall in love with each other.<br /><br />Winterbottom had an important story, with quite a big potential. A nice recipe that he ruins giving it a so slow rhythm, narrating it in a so weary way, removing any emotions... Coldness, that's all Code 46 transmits. Coldness and boredom. Not even the presence of Samantha Morton and Tim Robbins (both of'em play their roles wonderfully) , nor the visual and sound power of some sequences can do anything to save the movie. What a pity.<br /><br />Code 46: what could have been and never was.<br /><br />*My rate: 4/10

Apparently this was an award winner. Apparently someone had a gun against his/her head and was force to nominate Maize: the Movie.<br /><br />Or this must have been a mistake.<br /><br />This is the most unwatchable movie ever made. The screening and the editing is the biggest horror of this movie. Two little girls get lost in a cornfield and get stalked by someone who can be heard laughing under his rubber mask. The little girls run into their hero dad, and then runs away from him, W.T.F.? The hero dad in the movie keeps losing track of them in the few minutes of watching this.<br /><br />The girls obviously weren't trained actors, and had no common sense to them. They were so annoying and so infantile in the movie, it not even remotely comedic. Hearing them scream over and over again like a broken record was the reason why I got up and left. You can't even listen to this movie without nearly going into convulsions.<br /><br />I can puke a better award winner than this garbage.

For many years, Samuel Goldwin tried to bring his friend Jascha Heifetz to the screen. One evening when Goldwyn and his wife Frances were having dinner with Heifetz and his wife, silent screen star Florence Vidor, Goldwyn proposed that Heifetz star in a movie. After some persuasion, Heifetz agreed, on the condition that his acting be kept to a minimum. And the movie, originally titled "Music School" was born.<br /><br />The story itself is rather stock: A streetwise boy (Gene Reynolds, who is best known as the producer of "M*A*S*H"), runs away from home and ends up at a financially troubled music school run by Professor Lawson (Walter Brennan). While attempting to raise funds for the school, the boy and some other kids happen across Heifetz at Carnegie Hall. After much ado, Heifetz ends up appearing at the school concert and sponsoring the school. <br /><br />The story, while predictable,is surprisingly well written, although the film contains several minor gaffes where different scenes were patched together, the most obvious being the young cellist who is sent out of the orchestra room on an errand and is seen sitting in the orchestra a few seconds later.<br /><br />What is not surprising is how good the acting is. As was customary for studios then, the studio surrounded the inexperienced star with veteran talent: Brennan, Joel McCrea, Andrea Leeds, Porter Hall, Marjorie Main (later of Ma and Pa Kettle fame), Arthur Hohl, Paul Harvey, and a Who's Who of character actors. Actress Diana Lynn and singer/actress Kaye Connor made their (uncredited) debuts in this film, as did longtime Nelson Eddy singing partner Gale Sherwood (as Jacqueline Nash). Child veteran actors Reynolds, Walter Tetley and Terry Kilburn also appear.<br /><br />Goldwyn hired the Peter Meremblum Symphony, a highly regarded youth orchestra from the Los Angeles Area, to appear in the film. Most of the kids in the orchestra weren't actors, but they were excellent musicians, as good as professionals (which many of them later became). Many of the kids in the orchestra went on to noteworthy careers: Kaye Connor and Diana Lynn both starred in the theater and movies, Richard Berres was a producer and director, Mitchell Lurie founded a well-known music supply company, Elliott Rapaport went on to be a prominent cardiologist, Lewis Elias was a band leader, Thomas Facey a conductor with different symphonies, Channing Robbins a prominent instructor at the Julliard School, his sister Joyce Robbins an instructor witn SUNY Stonybrook, and many of the kids in the orchestra pursued musical careers with major symphony orchestras.<br /><br />While Heifetz's acting was kept to a minimum, his salary wasn't. He commanded $70,000 for seven weeks. When some scenes had to be re-shot at a later date, he got an additional $50,000 for another four weeks. What thankfully wasn't kept to a minimum was his musical output. Composer Alfred Neumann (who was once a Meremblum Orchestra conductor) handled the scoring. Heifetz performs the "Introductionne and Rondo Capriccioso" by Camille Saint-Saens, his own arrangement of Manuel Ponce's "Estrellita" (with an off-screen Teddy Saidenberg accompanying), Dinicu's devilishly difficult "Hora Staccato" (from a Vitaphone recording, with Emanuel Bay at the piano), an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's "Melody", an excerpt arranged for violin solo from Tchaikovsky's well-known "Adante Cantabile" from his opus 11 string quartet (played during the opening credits at the beginning of the movie), and the final movement from Felix Mendelssohn-Barthody's E Minor Violin Concerto. During all of these performances, there are many closeups of Heifetz's performing, including some very close shots of his fingering and bowing, something that would be of value to violinists desiring to study his technique.<br /><br />The Meremblum orchestra also shines here, performing the arias "Caro Nome" by Verdi and "Casta Diva" by Bellini, (both with Sherwood singing ), an arrangement of the overture from Rossini's "Barber of Seville", a short excerpt from Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", and the previously-mentioned Mendelssohn concerto (with Heifetz). Diana Lynn can be heard in the background of one scene, performing part of Chopin's Nocturne in B-flat Minor, and a five year old Mary Ruth performs Chopin's popular "Minute" Waltz.<br /><br />All in all, this is an excellent movie. AMC showed this regularly up until early 1992. I haven't seen it on television in recent years, but copies of it are not difficult to obtain. If you have the chance, I highly recommend that you view the movie.

WHO'S GOT THE GOLD? is (unfortunately) the last of the HANZO THE RAZOR films, starring Shintaro Katsu as the title character - the multi-weapon proficient, authority-bucking samurai officer with the "unique" technique of raping confessions out of unwilling female informants until they "spill the beans" and beg for more...<br /><br />This entry starts with Hanzo "uncovering" a woman who poses as a ghost to guard a lake that's filled with bamboo trunks filled with gold stolen from the Treasury. This leads to Hanzo discovering a loan-sharking scheme and an orgy ring run by a blind monk. The requisite swordplay and rape/interrogation ensue - finalizing in a decent ending for this strange trilogy of films.<br /><br />Not quite as strong and enjoyable as THE SNARE (part 2 of the series...), but still great for fans of samurai sleaze and Japanese pinky-style films. 8/10

I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good in "Desparately Seeking Susan" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants Stadium. <br /><br />"Who's That Girl?" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap/heroine routine better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to witness all the shenanigans.<br /><br />The story involves a huge cat named Murray, a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements of a screwball comedy intact. <br /><br />Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything. <br /><br />Compared to most Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On its own, its not that bad. 6/10.<br /><br />PS The concert was lousy.

My mother keeps a cassette of this film as a general threat to any film loving person who annoys her. Everything about it stinks.<br /><br />As such it is a true classic.<br /><br />Who gave it 10/10? Were you inadvertently watching a good film and accidentally voted for this one?<br /><br />Everyone involved in the movie making process should be forced to watch at least a small section of this film. It should be an indelible stain on the minds on all that hold film sacred and be revered as the tide mark of the cinematically dire.

Not for the squeamish, but the number of twists, inventive uses of situations using vampire mythology, gorgeous visual extremes, together with interesting and quirky characters make this one of the most stunning horror films I've ever seen. It descends into utter madness along with characters, but never seems exploitative or horrific without purpose. There are copious amounts of bloodletting accompanied by some nasty sucking and squishing sounds, but also subtle moments where you laugh out loud. As he tends to do, Chan-wook Park keeps you off center with leaps in time and plot and situation that you have to fill in for yourself forcing your involvement in the story and characters. <br /><br />And there's a lot of literal leaping. Keeping in the vein of vampire myth (pun intended), they have superhuman strength and can nearly leap tall buildings in a single bound (to coin a phrase). The first time our heroine is carried by the across the tops of buildings by the troubled vampire priest, it has all the magical romance of Lois Lane and Superman - but this romance becomes increasingly disturbing - but driven by a strange and conflicted 'love affair' not by mere horror.<br /><br />The acting is superb, particularly OK-vin Kim, the gorgeous actress in the female lead role who, at 22, shows a range that is remarkable. The character borders on a kind of black widow film noir type. She careens from innocent to impish to vixen to demon with utter conviction. This is a really smooth and nervy performance. <br /><br />If you love real art in horror, or are a fan of Oldboy - don't wait for the video, see it immediately.

A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10

I'm Czech and soldiers (not only pilots) who escaped Czechoslovakia after Nazi's invasion in 1939 and fought against them abroad are true heroes and bravest men in our history for me. This movie from director of Academy Award winner "Kolya" (1996) is a tribute to these men. It's first big-screen movie about Czechoslovak WWII soldiers since "Nebesti jezdci" (1968). I think "Dark Blue World" is a good movie - good acting, good special effects, nice music etc. Movie is half in English and some actors are Britons. But greatest thing about this movie is it's pure existence. It's great chance to show people all around the world (and to many people in Czech Republic too...) that Czechoslovak role in WWII was not only as occupied country but as an active member of allied campaign.<br /><br />Leading characters are older and wiser Frantisek and young Karel. They escaped together from Czechoslovakia, they are flying in the same squadron and they fell in love with the same woman... Maybe it's a cliché but fortunately this storyline is not so aggressive and is in good balance with other scenes (including great dogfights). I don't want to compare "Dark Blue World" with "Pearl Harbor", someone will like PH more and someone will like DBW. But if you like happy ends, DBW is not for you. So, I think it's very good movie for everyone who likes this type of stories and very good movie who wants to get to know something about this chapter of Czechoslovak history.<br /><br />BTW, main theme "Dark Blue World" is from Czech 30's and 40's composer Jaroslav Jezek. He wrote this theme when he lost his eyes...

Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.

Whatever rating I give BOOM is only because of the superb location photography of Sardinia and Rome. Otherwise, this is only for hardcore addicts of ELIZABETH TAYLOR (her downward phase), and RICHARD BURTON (his miscasting phase). Tennessee Williams wrote "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore" and is supposed to be very fond of this adaptation of his play--but apparently, he was the only one. Taylor reportedly hated it and Burton needed the money.<br /><br />Whatever, it amounts to a hill of beans with Taylor posturing and fuming in her shrill manner, exploding at the servants and exchanging bad baby-talk with no less than NOEL COWARD who seems to be a visitor from another film when he finally appears.<br /><br />It's so campy that among Taylor fans it's probably considered a "must see" kind of thing. But if you can sit through this one without a drink in your hand, you're way ahead of me. Sadly, this is the film that signified the end of Taylor being taken seriously as a film actress, even after winning two Oscars. For Burton, it was equally disastrous and the critics called it a BOMB. Judge for yourself if you dare.

I first saw this film as a teenager. It was at a time when heavy metal ruled the world. Trick Or Treat has every element for a movie that rocks. With a cast that features Skippy from Family Ties, Gene Simmons of Kiss and Ozzy Osbourne as a Preacher, how can you go wrong? Backwards evil messages played on vinyl! Yes thats right, they use records in this movie. In one scene Eddie (Skippy) is listening to a message from the evil rockstar on his record player when things begin to get scary. Monsters start to come out of his speakers and his stereo becomes possessed. As a teenager I tried playing my records backwards hoping it would happen to mine. Almost 20 years later Trick Or Treat is still one of my all time favorite movies.

I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.<br /><br />The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.<br /><br />Why was this movie ever made?

I try to be diverse in my movie watching. I can get into "Pride and Prejudice" as easily as I get into "Disappearing Acts". Love Jones is my all time favorite, it is the standard by which I judge any Modern Urban Romantic Comedy. Shot very well, the shot of Nia and Darius riding up Lakeshore Drive on the Motorcycle is one of Classic 3 second movie shots of all time. Of course no one will ever remember it. When it came out, I though it would be a new paradigm for Modern Urban Film-making, good actors, no guns, and so forth. The movie industry has disappointed me to a certain degree, you will have your occasional Drumline, or Roll Bounce, or Tyler Perry's "Why Did I get Married". So whenever I need to see "my people" presented on screen in a very professional and stylish way, I pop in Love Jones. There is no Best Movie ever made, to many people and opinions for that. But it is my personal best. My favorite line from Love Jones " Baby, I just wanna come up and talk!!"

OK, let me start off by saying this isn't a horrible movie by any means. It's just not good. I recall one poster saying the acting isn't campy it's just nuanced. No. I've seen nuanced Japanese and Asian acting. I'm sorry, you're wrong. This is camp.<br /><br />The characters are totally unsympathetic, the deaths are totally random and utterly meaningless. The writing is bad. I'm fine with suspending disbelief, I'm fine with not having everything handed to me in terms of plot. But this movie has no plot. One reviewer stated "This movie is set in a small town where people are going nuts over vortexes and spirals." That's not a blurb, that's the entire freaking film. Congratulations, I've just saved you nearly an hour and a half. There is nothing more to it. No character development, no plot development, no explanations, no resolution. And not even the "Acceptable within the realm of J-Horror" lack of resolution. Just nothing.<br /><br />In addition, the musical score is done by someone who obviously wasn't actually watching the movie at the time because it's random enough to cause whiplash. Cognitive dissonance is one thing and done well it can be brilliant (see Dark Water), but here it just seems as if the score was designed to go with another movie all together.<br /><br />The best example I can give is it's as if the Japanese remade Evil Dead without any of the clever bits or good acting. It just falls flat. It's J-horror without the horror.

Goldrush: A Real Life Alaskan Adventure is a great tv film for all ages. The movie focuses around "Fizzy" (Alyssa Milano) who wants to go on travel for gold in Alaska. The only person who hires her is Pierce Thomas Madison (Bruce Campbell). What comes next for her is an adventure she will never forget. This tv film was just great. The acting is #1 (especially by Bruce Campbell and Alyssa Milano) and I also learned some information about the Goldrush. I recommend this TV film to all without hesitation. It is also based on a true story.<br /><br />10/10

A truly dreadful film. I did not know initially that this was a Kiwi effort - but very soon I started to realize that all the characters were speaking with hardly disguised kiwi accents under the fake American ones. Why did it need to be set n America anyway? - it could have been set in NZ and then the actors could have used their normal voices. Surely someone in the production team could hear the dreadful attempts at speaking with American accents? A bad bad film. I am surprised it has lasted this long - how did it make it out of the can? It just seemed like a very poor attempt at a Segal/Willis type action man flick.A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY! If there was any TAXPAYER money in this piece of trash, I would be leading a revolution to have all the money put back into the Treasury. I am still reeling (get it? pun, reeling!) at the absolute garbage I have just seen. Why did I continue to watch? Well, I am a movie fanatic and cant help ,myself!

Nothing short of magnificent photography/cinematography in this film. The fact that you keep seeking and hoping for more flying sequences, tells you that they have just enough. The acting is fantastic, the stories are seamlessly woven together, and the dogs are splendid.............<br /><br />A must rent, view, or see.<br /><br />Don't be afraid of subtitles........<br /><br />its worth a little aversion therapy<br /><br />10/10<br /><br />

The year is 1896.Jeff Webster (James Stewart) doesn't like people.There's only one friend he's got and he's Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan), an old sympathetic man.They're driving a cattle herd with them.That would be their key to richness.In Skagway they run into trouble when Sheriff Gannon (John McIntire) takes the cattle.Now Jeff only has to get it back and drive it through the U.S. Canadian border to Dawson.Now they have a group of other people with them, like the ladies Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) and Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvet).There the two men get into the gold business.Anthony Mann's and James Stewart's fourth collaboration, The Far Country (1954) is a fine western, indeed.The acting work is superb.Walter Brennan makes a terrific sidekick to Stewart.Ruth Roman is brilliant and Corinne Calvet's delightful.Jay C. Flippen is very good as Dawson Marshal Rube Morris.The great Jack Elam and Kathleen Freeman are seen in smaller roles.It's fantastic to watch how Jimmy Stewart overcome's all the troubles in his way.There's just the man and his rifle.But also he's vulnerable.

With films like "Wallace & Gromit" and "Chicken Run" under their belt, the good people from the other side of the pond, Aardman Animation, are now introducing us to a bit of their twisted humor in the form of "Creature Comforts".<br /><br />Derived from a short done early in their careers, "Creature Comforts" is a slice-of-life show where snippets of conversation are removed from their context and given to an animal of some sort.<br /><br />Aardman Animation went across the country interviewing people with innocuous questions such as, "Are you a liar?" and then speed things up a bit asking about their sex lives.<br /><br />The answers, while seeming to be boring and mundane, are actually quite funny, when you understand the dialogs come first and the animals are added later.<br /><br />How many of these animals look like the person making the statements? One of the characters discussing what he looks for in a woman, "I like them kind of thin." is an insect, the Walking Stick.<br /><br />There are two dogs discussing odors and smells, while sniffing the behind of a poodle, as they talk about the different smells of a woman.<br /><br />There are two birds in a cage. As the "wife" tells the litany that is her health, her long suffering husband stands by her, saying nothing.<br /><br />While it might take some time for "Creature Comforts" to find it's "legs", it should find a place on television for those who are tired of the ordinary. While there are more reality shows than Carter has liver pills, "Creature Comforts" is one of a kind and definitely worth watching.<br /><br />Some of the humor might seem a little racy, it's the claymation that catches the attention of the children (like the old Batman series of the 60's, the jokes are subtle enough the kids won't get them) and it's the jokes that are there for the adults.

It's been quite some time since I've watched this LOTR. I am currently hunting for a copy to purchase. Bakshi's work is quite true to the original work. The visuals are engrosing and sometimes haunting.<br /><br />Drawbacks? Occasionally, the movie is confusing or muddled. There are one or two times where the storyline slows to a crawl. But, overall -- buy this movie. It's great for kids, adults and collectors.

I just found the entire 3 DVD set at Wal-Mart in the bargain bin for $5.50, so I thought I would take another look. Total of 13 hours to watch it all (26 episodes). I was born in 1948 and saw most of them on TV in the sixties. Many independent stations repeated them for many years.<br /><br />Better than I expected actually, time has been kind to the obvious sincerity of it's creators, and to the obvious gratitude and respect they give to all the Allied fighting men and women. More abstract and arty than a straight forward documentary, but very truthful in it's depiction of the causes and final results of WWII. That war was greatly dependent on sea transportation, and the final victory was dependent on who achieved the final mastery of the world's oceans. The Allies were the ones who were able to do it.<br /><br />Interesting too, to see how they try to strike a balance between big events, and the individual soldiers and sailors that made them happen. The score is impressive, if a bit too much by today's standards. I read somewhere that Robert Russell Bennett contributed just as much as Richard Rodgers to final score. I imagine that Rodgers provided all the major themes, and it was up to Bennett to fit them to the images. Great job!<br /><br />Should be seen by every ruler, or potential ruler. A warning to tyrants that wars are eventually won by ideals, determination, and the supplies to back them up. Logistics: their quality and delivery will determine the eventual victors. The Allies outproduced and surpassed the material quality of the Axis, attacked their very source in the process, and insured their eventual defeat.<br /><br />Sorry to see that the producer, Henry Salomon, lived a very short life. IMDb's facts were rather skimpy, I have to find out more about him. He did a few more outstanding documentaries before his early death. Might have more to say at a later time<br /><br />Trivia: I had all 3 LP records made of the background music, pretty good overall. Unfortunately, the producers decided to add sound effects to the last one, relegating immediately to just novelty status, rather than for serious music listening. Too bad too, because it contained some interesting but more minor themes in the series. Silly stuff like 16 inch guns firing, torpedoes being fired, bulldozers, planes...just for kids mainly.<br /><br />RSGRE

This film is so wonderful it captures the gaming life. I laughed so hard while watching this. The movie is about a gaming group that have a hard time with a campaign that their dungeon master came up with. The movie switches from the real world and the gaming world as they play the campaign it shows them in the gaming world as their character, and then switches back to the real world when they are not playing. The campaign is the basis for a module that the dungeon master, Lodge, is writing. The problem is Lodge can't finish his module because the characters can't finish the campaign. They are more for killing and looting instead of role playing. Lodge wants them to role play through the campaign something they have never done before. They decide to bring in some extra help so they bring a,wait for it, girl in to play. Lodge also makes a npc, a non player character, a paladin,who can not witness or do wrong, to play. The film is how they do all this and more I don't want to spoil any of the film so I won't say any more. This movie may not be a big budget film the acting may not be Oscar worthy but if you are into gaming or into dungeons and dragons then definitely watch it. They had a lot of fun making this film and it shows I am not going to bash on it for any movie problems such as continuity or any thing it was a low budget film that is just fun. There is some slap stick comedy which I enjoy and some damn good writing in my opinion. So if you want a fun film try it .

Superb and charming. Justin Henry is beautiful as a blissed out and mischievous Howard Kaylan, lead singer for the top ten hit making band, The Turtles. The real magic is the titular sequence with an academy award worthy turn by Royale Watkins. A performance that completely captures the mystical and yet down to earth Jimi Hendrix. Not many films, unbelievably so, can find the essence of a special moment in a life and times. I'd like to see this available at any home video retail outlet without any hassle. Uh..what's the deal?<br /><br />Thanks Eddie. A worthy addition to the history of the psychedelic sixties. A definite twinkle in the mind's eye.

WOW! <br /><br />This film is the best living testament, I think, of what happened on 9-11-01 in NYC, compared to anything shown by the major media outlets.<br /><br />Those outlets can only show you what happened on the outside. This film shows you what happened on the INSIDE. <br /><br />It begins with a focus on a rookie New York fireman, waiting for weeks for the first big fire that he will be called to fight. The subject matter turns abruptly with the ONLY EXISTING FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE TO HIT THE TOWERS. You are then given a front-row seat as firefighters rush to the scene, into the lobby of Tower One. <br /><br />In the minutes that precede the crash of the second plane, and Tower Two's subsequent fall, you see firemen reacting to the unsettling sound of people landing above the lobby. It is a sight you will not soon forget.<br /><br />Heart-rending, tear-jerking, and very compelling from the first minute to the last, "9/11" deserves to go down in history as one of the best documentary films ever made.<br /><br />We must never forget.<br /><br />

When I first saw this show i thought to my self " What is this!!!!!?" Its one of those shows where there is a perfect fake high school world with stupid problems that are considered "huge". Then there's Sadie. This complete misfit for her friends and well her family. Shes completely obsessed with nature not that thats a bad thing but she compares high school students to animals! like what is that!? also they made her another Lizzie Miguire clone ( yeah because the world definitely needs another one of those!) shes also very perfect like most TV girls are which makes me sick! So please this is a stupid show it makes no sense just skip it unless you liked Lizzie McGuire or any other shows like that.

The stage star Grace Hayes stars in this obscure little film. After years of being on the stage, she is going to visit a small college town to check up on her son who is being raised by his grandfather. The kid doesn't know who his mother is and when she sees him in a local malt shop, he's a boorish jerk. Part of the problem is that he is a college clown the other part is that he's really spoiled.<br /><br />Interestingly, it turns out that Mom is really quite wealthy and has been not only funding her son's life but is a hefty contributor to the college. So, she has the idea of forcing the young man to mature. She talks to the man who's raising Peter and has his allowance cut off completely--hoping he'll rise to the occasion. It also turns out that she puts the screws to the school because she thinks all these kids need to stop playing around and be more responsible.<br /><br />Now here's where it gets pretty dumb. To show that they know the value of hard work, she hires a bunch of them to sing and dance at the malt shop she just purchased. Talk about contrived!! What happens next is like a long and not particularly good talent show or perhaps a poor man's version of a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musical! I'd suggest the kids try to do something else to earn money...or perhaps sing and dance until people pay them to stop! I know I would pay them.<br /><br />Considering that the talent is far from talented, Peter is a bad actor and his change from lout to responsible adult is almost instantaneous, the whole thing is a bit hard to take. Not a very good film by any sane standard, this is an obscure film that should have stayed obscure! <br /><br />By the way, it is interesting that Ms. Hayes' son in the film, Peter, is actually her real life son. The only problem with that is that Peter Lind Hayes is a truly awful actor. He's not handsome enough to be a leading man and he comes off as either dull and uninteresting or downright obnoxious. In particular, all the stupid impressions he does are really bad and he has the charisma of the gelatin that you scrape off Spam. Despite this terrible performance, he did go on to have a reasonably successful acting career. Who would have believed it if you'd seen him in ZIS BOOM BAH--because here, he's about as welcome as the Bubonic Plague!!