Datasets:

Deysi

/

split-imdb

like 0

I wanted to love this movie. Everything seemed to be in place for an enjoyable, if not groundbreaking, film. It was set in southern France, good-looking and recognizable actors led the cast, and I really admired the vibrant African costumes, the proverbs and music. Despite all this, I didn't love it. Movies are supposed to convey their meaning at the first viewing, but "Secret Laughter" doesn't do that. Nimi and Matthew, as played by Long and Firth (both of whom have played romantic leads before and should have known better), radiate as much warmth and passion as dried fish. I used 'dried fish' deliberately, because it was one of a few - too few - strong lines and moments sprinkled throughout the film. Another winner was when Nimi catches Matthew snooping around her apartment. He finds a book of hers with her first name written on it and says: "Your name is Nimi. I never knew." Then he insists that she call him by his Christian name. I watched this scene intently as Matthew asked Nimi over and over to "say my name", realizing that up until that moment, they always called each other by their last names. I thought this was a turning point for the film, and expected that it get better. It didn't. Why do Nimi and Matthew always seem to stand at ten paces, even in that "say my name" scene? What does Matthew like about Nimi, aside from her obvious beauty? And why would a sensible woman like Nimi fall for a comic book writer who regards his marriage as something he can put on hold when a beautiful exotic 'adventure' comes along? And I'd like to add that it was a little hard for me to get behind a romance built on adultery. Yes, Jenny is a vicious harpy, but if I were in her shoes, but I'd probably match her Cruella tactics to stop my husband from straying. Believe it. The story hints at Nimi's painful past, but never fully explores it. Some critics say Firth seemed a little awkward here, and I agree. For goodness sake, the actor summoned more palpable longing and passion as that early 19th-century snob Mr. Darcy (and while wearing those hideous britches)! As for Long, who did shine in 'Love Jones', there were times when she seemed to concentrate more on her accent than playing her character. Even so, there were many moments – the 'say my name' scene among them – when she was in total control and came across really well. Yet, 'Secret Laughter' is not without its redeeming qualities, and I've found that it grew on me with more viewings. Nene was well portrayed as supportive and well-meaning, even if she doesn't fully understand Nimi's attraction to Matthew. I absolutely loved it when Nene faced off with Mama Fola in those dueling proverbs scenes. My husband liked it, and usually he's the first to sigh and throw insults at the screen if he doesn't like what is going on. He even chuckled at the scene when Sammy asked Matthew some very frank questions about sex. So there you have it. 'Secret Laughter' was good enough to entertain an avowed curmudgeon like my hubby, but an avid moviegoer like myself will need more than one viewing to appreciate what the director and writer were trying to convey.

Blazing saddles! It's a fight between two estranged brothers (Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard), both of whom can ignite fires mentally; they square off over childhood differences, with dippy love-interest Debra Winger caught in the middle. Director Glenn Gordon Caron (the TV whiz-kid behind "Moonlighting") smothers the darkly-textured comedy in Vince Gilligan's screenplay with a presentation so slick, the movie resembles an entry from an over-enthusiastic film student on a fifteen million-dollar grant. It has the prickly energy of a big commercial feature, but a shapeless style which brings out nothing from the characters except their kooky eccentricities. These aren't even characters, they're plot functions. Barely-released to theaters, the film is a disaster, although strictly as an example of style over substance it does look good. Winger is the only stand-out in a cast which looks truly perplexed. *1/2 from ****

Only seen season 1 so far but this is just great!! A wide variety of people stuck on a island. Nobody are who they seem to be and everybody seems to have loads of skeletons in their closets .... it sounds like Melrose Place meets the Crusoe family and why is that so great ? It probably is not but then ad a spoon full of X Files, a dose of "what" ?? and a big "hey" and a island that is everything You ever dreamed of - in Your freakiest nightmares and You'll be Lost to. The story got so many twists and turns it is unbelievable. Great set up, solid acting with a liberating acceptance that at the end of the everybody is human (well almost everybody ... I think ...)with good and bad sides. But weird oh so weird ...

I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to. <br /><br />Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it. <br /><br />From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.<br /><br />Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life. <br /><br />I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a "friend".

Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says "oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.

After reading previews for this movie I thought it would be a let down, however after I got my region 1 dvd ( the dvd was available before the film hit the uk cinemas) I was pleasantly surprised, strong performances from all cast members make this a very enjoyable movie. The fact that the script is quite weak means that you dont get bogged down in story and therefore the repeat viewing factor is greater. I recommend this movie to one and all<br /><br />

Now we know where they got the idea of Snakes on a Plane. To put it bluntly, do not pay to see this movie. If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then either catch it on cable, or get it as a free pick from NetFlix or Blockbuster. Do not pay to rent this. If you do pay to rent this, then you are one stupid individual. The acting was awful, the plot was awful, everything was awful except for the snakes. Whether they were real or CGI generated, they did look pretty good. But that being said, still this movie has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Even the nude dancing scene was pretty bad that I actually fast forwarded through that. Don't sat I did not warn you.

I became more emotionally attached to this movie than any other I have ever watched. That may be because I can see the characters as my own grandparents, attempting to make sense of a world at war. The ending and use of Pachabel's Cannon are both amazing.

I went to see this movie mostly because it looked so good in the trailers. Robin Williams and Barry Levinson should equal greatness. Instead it just continues Williams' bad streak of movies lately. What's wrong with the movie? More like what's right: the ensemble crew does a pretty good job around Robin, and like usual, Christopher Walken is fantastic. That being said, this movie just plain wasn't good. I really only recommend seeing it if you want to see what it would be like if Jon Stewart ran for president and won. Saying he won isn't a spoiler, since it was in the trailer. The concept and idea is really amusing, but that's all. Most of Robin's jokes are just recycled from old comedy bits of his, and there are very few laugh out loud moments, and most are just dumb. Like most comedies that turn out to suck, all of the funny bits are put into the trailer. Really no surprises there, but come on! Some of the movie reads like a Tom Clancy or Vince Flynn novel! People were expecting this to be Robin's return to greatness. Instead, it's more a Flubber.

Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.<br /><br />One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.<br /><br />Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.<br /><br />Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.<br /><br />Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.<br /><br />By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.<br /><br />I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.<br /><br />Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.<br /><br />I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.<br /><br />Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy.

This is definitely the worst vampire flicks of all times. I started to watch this right after Interview With the vampire and I was thoroughly disappointed. Not only did this movie's script have craters as big as the grand canyon, the movie seemed to jump from one scene to another leaving the viewers thoroughly puzzled. The vampire Lestat played by Stuart Townsend was terrible-having a good body does not make you an actor! The end of the queen was too easy and sudden, insulting the viewers intelligence. I'll give this one star because Aaliyah actually tried her best in this movie and the soundtrack is pretty good. Other than that I would advice Anne Rice to take an ax and start hacking those who destroyed her brilliant story.

How awful is it? Let me count the ways: 1) It is a bait-and-switch movie that starts out being about a UFO investigation, then turns into a high-pressure sales job for Christianity. C'mon! If the makers of this movie felt so strongly about their message, why disguise it? It annoys non-believers and pushes fence-sitters in the opposite direction. 2) It's not even a good sales pitch! If the characters in this flick asked me to go to church with them, I'd run like Hell in the opposite direction. They're scary! 3) The acting is terrible. They all behave as if they were in an educational film about etiquette in the workplace. 4) The cinematography is home-movie bad. Wait, actually its not even that good. 5) Script bad, bad, bad. All dialogue, no action. Like a tennis match, they bounce back and forth between the "talking head" close ups. 6) Direction... what direction? Oh, there must have been a director there somewhere. I challenge you to figure out where.<br /><br />Believe it or not, I have some positive comments about this movie. The editing seemed professional, but couldn't make a difference. A good edit of bad material is still a bad movie. The opening theme music was actually very good! Very scary and UFO-ish. Too bad the movie wasn't about UFOs.<br /><br />If you can't tell already, here's the bottom line. I wasted my money seeing this movie, and it made me angry. If they had not disguised what this movie was really about, I could say it was my fault.

DIRTY WAR <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.78:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Emergency services struggle to cope when Islamic terrorists detonate a so-called 'dirty bomb' in the middle of London.<br /><br />Daniel Percival's frightening movie uses all available evidence to dramatize the possible effects of a radioactive explosion in the heart of the UK capital, using the kind of documentary-style realism which has distinguished this particular subgenre since the 1960's. In essence, the film reveals a catalogue of flaws in the British government's current strategy for dealing with such terrorist outrages, and Percival's carefully-honed script (co-written by Lizzie Mickery) vents its spleen against mealy-mouthed politicians who would rather maintain the economic status quo than tackle this issue head-on. The film covers all necessary bases, and makes the salient point that this kind of terrorism is practised by a tiny handful of fanatics who have tarnished the Islamic faith with their reckless disregard for human life, though viewers won't be reassured by the subsequent scenes of devastation and horror. Not merely a drama, the film acts as a warning against complacency. Either that, or its just another post-9/11 scaremongering tactic. YOU be the judge...

I have decided to not believe what famous movie critics say. Even though this movie did not get the best comments, this movie made my day. It got me thinking. What a false world this is.<br /><br />What do you do when your most loved ones deceive you. It's said that no matter how often you feed milk to a snake, it can never be loyal and will bite when given a chance. Same way some people are such that they are never grateful. This movie is about how selfish people can be and how everyone is ultimately just thinking about oneself and working for oneself. <br /><br />A brother dies inadvertently at the hands of a gangster. The surviving brother decides to take revenge. Through this process, we learn about the futility of this world. Nothing is real and no one is loyal to anyone.<br /><br />Amitabh gave the performance of his life. The new actor Aryan gave a good performance. The actress who played the wife of Amitabh stole the show. Her role was small but she portrayed her role so diligently that one is moved by her performance. Chawla had really great face expressions but her role was very limited and was not given a chance to fully express herself.<br /><br />A great movie by Raj Kumar Santoshi. His movies always give some message to the audience. His movies are like novels of Nanak Singh (a Punjabi novelist who's novels always had a purpose and targeted a social evil) because they have a real message for the audience. They are entertaining as well as lesson-giving.

André Roussin was a specialist of what the French call "Theatre de Boulevard" : plays where you find the eternal triangle:man/wife/(male or female)lover .Many of his plays gave Elvire Popesco some of her best parts on stage....and the great actress was the main reason to watch them,for Roussin is not Sacha Guitry ,by a long shot.The French audience remembers "Au Theatre Ce Soir' .<br /><br />Still with me? Roussin's plays were not made to be filmed.And this one is pretty mediocre material ,even if the screenwriters call Lewis Carroll to their rescue .I like Stewart Granger and David Niven ,and Ava Gardner is eye candy .But this might be their worst film ,being crude, predictable -even the native's (Bola -Bola )intervention is ludicrous- a knockabout farce around a Menage à Trois on a desert island where Granger would be some kind of Robinson,Niven ,his Friday and Gardner his girl Friday.

I really liked the movie 'The Emporer's New Groove', but watching this was like coming home and seeing your wife having "relations" with a llama. Seriously, this movie was bad. It's like Club Dread after Super Troopers. I am supposed to write 10 lines, but I don't even know what else to say. I laughed a couple of times, but only because I was drinking. A movie like that should at least be funny when your drunk. It was not. Maybe llamas are just funny and regular cartoon people aren't. Either way, just stick with The Emporer's New Groove if you want a funny, cartoon, llama-themed movie. Line 10 is this line right here.

Good Movie, acting was terrific especially from Eriq Ebouaney(Lumumba)and very well directed.<br /><br />It also shows how Lumumba was cornered by the Belgians, U S A and United Nations and how they labelled him a `communist' to scare people as they did to all the Honest True African leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Nyerere and many others. It shows how western countries preach democracy while they have something else on the back of their minds. It is a story of injustice, struggle and brutality.<br /><br />It shows how Lumumba couldn't control his people, yes they were his people, but before we put the blame on him, was he getting enough if any from the people he appointed in his government like Mobutu? Or his colleague had other things in their minds, to find out go and see the movie! Certainly Mobutu did, went on to loot the country for the next 35 yrs, before he was overthrown and fled the country. Died a billionaire.<br /><br />Some flaws: There was too little explanation how the man (Lumumba) got to rise in the first place. Also there should have been more explanation about the country, Congo Kinshasa (after independence), now known as Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire when it was under Mobutu. There should have been an explanation why he (Lumumba) couldn't keep the second largest country in Africa in one piece. And also what was going on with Tshombe and Katanga . Just heads up if you gonna watch the movie Tshombe was controlling the Katanga region which (if I am not mistaken) is the number one copper producer in the world.<br /><br />In all it is a good movie to see. You will learn something new about Africa, it's leaders and it's people and probably will open your eyes why this continent is ridden with wars.

i bought this in the budget department last week. i had halloween and halloween II already, and since i aim to collect every horror film ever, i chose this. after all, the 1st two were good.<br /><br />this film is pretty intelligent to tell the truth. it seems to create the correct atmosphere, and has a nice "history of michael myers". it uses the old locations from the original, and the main character is the kid whom laurie strode babysat that fateful halloween in 1978...<br /><br />the climax also is fairly satisfying. anyways, it is A LOT better than H20, which frankly, is absolute crap.

Nicolas Cage and Deborah Foreman provide stunning performances in this 80's tour de force! A great 80's movie akin to Fast Times at Ridgemont High! I highly recommend this movie to any child of the 80's who hasn't seen it. It's a cult classic.

I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.<br /><br />In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.<br /><br />The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.<br /><br />Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.<br /><br />Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?". <br /><br />Scenes like those you will find plenty. <br /><br />Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.<br /><br />Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back.

I kind of had somewhat high expectations for this movie. I've always thought that Tom Selleck's lesser known movies (ie Runaway and Coma), where well above the ones he had more press for. Maybe the producers should have had a little more knowledge about former major league baseball players who became stars overseas. The majority were players too good for triple a baseball, but not exactly major league matériel. I admire the idea of putting Selle's's character in Japn, versus the cliché of having play in the minors. Sad to say, this movie, much like the title of the post, is stranded at third by a movie that seems to be running on autopilot. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel, and hopefully, the producers would learn from the mistakes. The premise is just way too unique to be left alone with this uneven flick

This is the second Eytan Fox film I have seen. The fantastic actor, Lior Ashkenazi, who starred in Walk on Water, has a minor role in this film also.<br /><br />But the real stars are the young Israelis who live together in a tiny apartment - Noam (Ohad Knoller), Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and Yelli (Alon Friedman); and the Palestinian that joins them off and on - Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid). There is sort of a Friends/Sex in the City thing going on (mostly gay), and they all just want the war to end so they can go on with their lives in peace.<br /><br />But, that's the rub. No matter how many posters you put up or how many raves for peace you have, the war is not going to end. Many have tried over the years to bring the two sides to the table, but they just want to keep it going for whatever reason. There are many on the Israeli side, both there and here in the US, who just want it all and will not consider peace. There are many on the Palestinian side who apparently would be out of a job should peace ever come. It is in no one's interest to end this war, and the children suffer.<br /><br />This is always on your mind as you watch this funny and engaging film. It won't go away. You know something tragic is going to happen and, of course, it does. With the feelings on both sides running strong, and revenge as the motivator, tragedy always happens, and that is what makes this an adult version of Friends/Sex in the City. There is no superficiality. It is real life, and it was a beautiful thing to see.

The Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.<br /><br />Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV.

The game of hockey I play and watch has something called "speed" which the actual hockey scenes in this limp movie never even come close to capturing. Add to that a storyline that is cliché, predictable and stupider than stupid with some of the lamest '80s music numbing your senses in every scene and you have "Youngblood". Oh, Keanu as a French Canadian, yeah, whatever. Gimme Dunlop, Braden and the Hansons anytime... ONE out of TEN.

After a very disappointing Part 3, I kinda wondered if I should even bother with The Next Karate Kid, while I could see why this saga wouldn't continue, I still enjoyed The Next Karate Kid most out of the second and the third Karate Kid movies. While there are some very unrealistic moments and situations, it was very enjoyable and the story is a catchy and warm one.<br /><br />Hilary Swank, has this girl come far or what? She plays a rebel girl who has lost her parents to a car accident and when Miaugi sort of "babysits" her per say, he notices that she has karate skills. He offers her more lessons if she becomes more serious in life. Now of course there is the boy that likes her and the mean bullies that are pretty similar to the first Karate Kid, but I would recommend this one. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />7/10

A beautiful woman, a backwoods, inbred monster man, a super sweet monster truck, a road kill zombie brother and 2 friends...one anal retentive, overly sensitive nerd and the other a foul mouthed, adolescent slob. Throw them all together with a dash of Jeepers Creepers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Road Trip and you've got Monster Man. A hilarious horror/comedy outing that never sets out to "say something". It's a simple, straight forward laugh fest. Unpretentious and well made, this horror/comedy is at its heart, a buddy flick. This film offered some hilarious and sickening set pieces. I highly recommend this to fright fans looking to be entertained.

There is a growing trend in the media to vilify and ridicule men. One sees it in television adverts and program plots. Cheaters is a prime example, they could find plenty of female cheaters yet the vast majority shown are men, why? The prime threat to any government's power resides in the male population, they're less likely to abide by authority and are more of a physical combat threat. A way to reduce the threat is to emasculate men in society via the media. Other examples of psychological propaganda are crime dramas full of self righteous cops including big-jawed aggressive women accusing everyone they question trampling their rights and making those men feel like scum. In Australia many top male sports stars have been arrested recently for dubious assaults and drinking charges, another example of the government controlling the male populous by arresting their heroes and asserting dominance. Cheaters, aside from the political machinations is an invasion of privacy and a violation of rights, furthermore most of these women assault the men! If it were round the other way the men would be in jail!! If it were an honest show they would be finding women cheaters, because they don't normally get caught due to the fact that their male lovers are quite happy to get in no strings attached and get out without rocking the boat. Men's mistresses want the men to themselves and want to own and control the men and thus get the men caught anyway.

Steve Martin should quit trying to do remakes of classic comedy. He absolutely does not fit this part. Like the woeful remake of the Out Of Towners, this movie falls flat on it's face. How anybody ever thought Steve Martin could even come close to Jack Lemmon's wonderful performance is beyond me and the same is true for this movie. Dan Ackroyd could have played the Bilko part better. Martin is great when doing his own original characters but fails miserably trying to recreate other people's classic work. It's a sad statement when the funniest part of a movie is contained in the first line of the credits when the movie is over. The line "The producers gratefully acknowledge the total lack of cooperation by the United States Army" was just about the only line that actually made me laugh. If you want to see the real Bilko, get hold of the original episodes of the Phil Silvers Show. Those are guaranteed to make you laugh, unlike this mistake that should never have happened. I put this movie in the same category as the aforementioned Lemmon classic and the remake of Psycho. None of them should ever have happened.

Piranha starts out as expected, stupid white people going to discover new lands and exploit them. I thought for a while it might be a cannibal film. It starts off like so many others, showing nothing but shots off untouched Amazon rain forest. For all I know it could be Florida. At this point you figure some animal mutilation or natives will pop up. Instead you get the acting talents of William Smith, who starred in L.A. Vice and Angels Die Hard. He plays Caribe, an acclaimed hunter, who I would describe him as Jack Palance Light. He is bigger in stature, but not quite the Jack Palance goodness. As for natives, you don't really get that many. Where's the piranha? Should I even ask that question? Caribe now hunts humans, I guess. He doesn't really pursue anyone till the end of the movie though, just stares at them. Caribe does race one of the tourists on a motorcycle in a over-dramatic Smokey and the Bandit kind of way. The motorcycle challenge happens for no real reason other than an action sequence. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a tourist challenge a stranger to a motorcycle race in the jungle. Never actually. Do they live, do they die? Will you care? Anybody wanna race on motorcycles? Caution: this film contains extreme dry look. My advice is to rent a Jack Palance classic like Craze.

Spanish horror icon Paul Naschy stars in this, one of his weakest werewolf films... but bear with me for a moment. Most people will be familiar with it under its most common television title, THE FURY OF THE WOLF MAN, and there have been many home video versions of it over the years. If you want to be serious about giving it a fair shot though, the most workable edition I've seen of it goes by the title THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS, and it's an unedited and complete European version which restores a couple of disturbing scenes and contains the original nude shots which are missing from FURY's print. It is also letterboxed.<br /><br />Naschy plays Waldemar Daninsky, returning home from a trip to Tibet only to find out that he's contracted a werewolf curse and that his wife has been having an affair. He takes care of her and her lover while in animal form, but then becomes a guinea pig for a sexy woman doctor and her female assistant. Apparently, the doc attempts to "tame" the werewolf, and there is a very strange sado-masochistic love scene between her and the hairy and fanged Daninsky who is under her trance, at least in the original version. Ultimately we get two werewolves for the price of one as Daninsky battles a she-wolf! <br /><br />The biggest problem with the movie is that the director (according to Naschy's claims) was often drunk, and the results are indeed rather incoherent. When watching THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS copy, it's not quite as difficult to make out what's going on, though the editing remains atrocious in spots. Worst of all is occasional non-matching footage of Naschy's ravenous werewolf swiped straight from another previous film (LA MARC DEL HOMBRE LOBO, aka "FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR") and mixed into this one without any sensible reason! The wolf's clothing changes from black shirt to white and back again, as does his demeanor; one moment the wolf is walking around lethargically in a hypnotic trance from FURY, next he is growling and running around savagely from BLOODY TERROR. Really bizarre.

This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not "turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named "Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.

Excellent movie about a big media firm and the goings on both on and off camera. Covering several years, the film centers on 3 upwardly mobile, young hopefuls, all striving for their place within the corporation. Well written dialogue, flawless acting, and a riveting story made for 2 hours of solid entertainment.

A solid B movie.<br /><br />I like Jake Weber. His understated delivery is refreshing in a time of over the top performances. I liked the relationship between the father and son. I liked the family dynamics. The Wendigo looks silly, but it is a representation of the kid's toy and the dead deer. It's an amalgamation like, see? This is a psychological story, not a Freddy slash em up instant gratification flick. Watch it and reflect on your inner child and what the movie might have to say to you and you'll be fine.<br /><br />Nice work.

I think it is saying something that the Bollywood "Bride and PRejudice" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.<br /><br />Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.<br /><br />What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!" and "Leave me alone for once in your lives!". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a "revisionist" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.<br /><br />The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.<br /><br />Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.<br /><br />On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.<br /><br />In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite.

The version of this film I saw was titled 'Horror Rises from the Tomb'. The horror in question is a wicked Medieval magician played by Spanish horror legend Paul Naschy looking like he's playing Abanazer in a church hall panto. He rises from his tomb when a stupid descendant (I think he's a descendant, as he's also played by Naschy)returns to his ancestral home and reunites the magician's head and body, which had been separated by by the witchfinders who executed him, in an attempt to stop him, er, rising from the tomb.<br /><br />Obviously, once head and body are back together all hell breaks loose and lots of people die. Like all good magicians, Abanazer here has a lovely assistant. This one's played by another Spanish horror great, the beautiful Helga Line. Like practically every other woman in the film Line periodically gets her kit off. There's a LOT of nudity in this film, and not just female - we even get to see Naschy's paunchy body, which isn't a pretty sight, I can tell you. Most of the film's sex angle is laughably gratuitous. There's one particularly funny scene where Naschy and Line discuss their evil plans and then suddenly decide to both have a grope of the nubile young blonde they've possessed.<br /><br />It's also pretty gory in places - notably a Herschell Gordon Lewis-esquire moment where Line plunges her hands into a man's chest to remove his heart.<br /><br />The best part of the film is the pretty effective zombies who turn up towards the end. They're quickly scared off by a fire though, and don't bother coming back. Which is a shame. The scene where the zombies rise, however, is the film's most ludicrously inept moment. It all happens in long shot, and we haven't really got a clue what's happening until we see some figures shambling on from the distance. There are several rubbish moments like this, thanks largely to poor editing. When a labourer falls under the hypnotic spell of Naschy's head there's a big close up of his face that seems to last forever and serves no purpose whatsoever.<br /><br />All in all, not a great horror film, but entertaining enough. Of course, the version I saw was a dubbed American version that had probably been chopped to pieces. For all I know, the original Spanish version could be a masterpiece...

The Youth In Us is a pitch-perfect gem. I saw this stunning short at this year's 2005 Sundance Festival. The story took me on a profoundly transforming journey. The directing by Joshua Leonard, the acting of Kelli Garner and Lukas Haas, the art direction, the cinematography, the score -- every element was true to the bone. One can only hope that this exquisite and excruciating film is prelude to more great work from this gifted director.<br /><br />Just as a short film is shown before a feature at Sundance, commercial movie theatres used a similar format in times past. It would be wonderful if miniature masterpieces like The Youth In Us could reach a wider audience this way.

The accounts seem real with a human factor added to the mix. A lot of sadness. I'm sure glad that I wasn't him....another thing to add is that all the women in this show were not really pretty accounts of the real women. But, I don't think that it was about the women, although it was to JFK Jr's passion. What a shame. any loss of life is a real shame.<br /><br />Seemed like a good account of his life. I recommend it if you are into biographies and melodrama!

Red Rock West is a perfect example of how good a film can be with practically no budget. All you need is a smart script, good actors and loads of atmosphere. RRW delivers all these and more.<br /><br />Nic Cage plays an ex-marine, injured in Lebanon, who is down to his last 5 dollars after being refused a job on an oilfield because of his bad knee. He roles into Red Rock and is mistaken by bartender Wayne (JT Walsh, not quite as his most menacing-but still evil) for a hit-man from Texas.<br /><br />He pays him to kill his wife and make it look like burglary. Only when he gets there, just to check her out. She offers him double to kill Wayne. Cage just wants to get the hell out of town with his free money and leave the sparring lovers be. But a series of mishaps and setbacks results in him yo-yoing in and out of Red Rock, back and forth. Eventually this leads to a run-in with Lyle from Dallas (a cheeky and somehow sympathetic Dennis Hopper), the REAL hit-man from Texas who offers to help without knowing he's making the plot more complicated.<br /><br />RRW never had a big release, thus most of it's audience discovered it on video or on cable TV showings. Viewing it in such a way might make it seem like a TV movie but it's bigger than that. The slick, slowly-timed direction, moody score and howling desert wind would have all made for a great movie in theatres but the best you can do these days is watch the DVD on a big HDTV.<br /><br />The only weak point of the movie I can think of is Lara Flynn Boyle's boring femme fatale with the nasty dyke-ish hairdo. I certainly wouldn't fall for her but if you assume that Nic Cage's character is in to militant lesbians then you'll accept it nonetheless.

Where to start... If this movie had been a dark comedy, I would say it was FANNN-TASTIC! Unfortunately for me, and anyone else with free time and a buck to spare (mind you that was the price I paid, got it from Wal-Mart), this movie was meant to be a thriller. The only THRILL I got was watching Kirkland's lousy rendition of Anne Wilkes from Misery sans snowy woodland area. If you want a good laugh, on a rainy Friday night with some friends, then I highly recommend this movie. But if you want to watch something at least half way decent, then don't even bother.<br /><br />I for one enjoy crappy films, the worse the better in most cases. But Wow... I Meant WOW!! The only person in the entire film that didn't stink it up was the little boy, played by Vincent Berry. The only reason why I even give it 3 stars is because it gave me something to do.

Five fingers of death: Although previous Shaw Martial Arts epics had shown the influence of the American cowboy genre, none had paid such open tribute to it as this one, especially in the saloon fight scene. And though Shaw Bros. films had borrowed from the Japanese chambara (swordfight) genre before, none had done so with such success as this one. i suppose some of this had to do with the fact that the director originated from Korea, and thus brought a non-Chinese perspective to such borrowings, which certainly raises some interesting questions about culture; but in any event, this film presented real innovations in technology and technique in Hong Kong action films. for the first time in Hong Kong, the camera was given access to the whole of any given set, which meant shots from many different angles, such as the low-angle interior shot showing the ceiling of a room (the original American innovation of which usually credited to John Ford), or the high angle long shot that allowed visualization of a large ground area, or the frontal tracking shot.<br /><br />It is true that this was not the first hand-to-hand combat film of real cinematic substance - that remains Wang Yu's 'Chinese Boxer'; but on a commercial level, Shaw Bros. were right to choose 'Five Fingers' as their first major release to the West because, one might say, it was the 'least Chinese' of their action films, that is, the least dependent on purely Chinese theater traditions. Although this made no impression on the American critics at the time (who universally trashed the picture), it wasn't lost on American audiences, especially among African Americans, whose culture had always been - by necessity - an eclectic patchwork of borrowed elements and innovation. In 'Five Fingers' they were given the opportunity to discover the core of the story, in the earnest young man forced to make the extra effort to overcome social barriers and betrayal in order to have his merit recognized. This seems to be an issue universal to Modernity, but each culture has its own way of expressing and resolving it; 'Five Fingers' presented it in a way many Americans could relate to as well as Chinese.<br /><br />So is the film now only of historical value? Certainly not. For one thing this issue hasn't gone away. Secondly, some of the innovations leave much of the film looking as fresh today as it did on first release. Also the action is well-staged, and the performances, though a little too earnest, are crisp. The film is a might over-long, but the story does cover a lot of ground. And there are marvelous set-pieces through-out, such as the saloon confrontation, the fight on the road to the contest, the odd double finale.<br /><br />definitely looks better on a theater screen, but still impressive for home viewing: recommended.

First of all - I'm not one to go all sappy over movies. I saw Friends in the 70's when it was first released. I was about 17 years old at the time. Even now, at age 50, I still can remember some of the scenes. The movie is sweet and sad and may actually be too tame for teenagers today but I loved it. The story is about innocence, the purity of young love and the determination of 2 young people to make a better life for themselves then they had at home. At the time it was pretty risky to have a movie about a couple of young runaways who successfully setup house and have a baby on their own. I'm not surprised the movie and Elton John's soundtrack are almost unknown today. The music is beautiful. It was unforgettable.

hi i am john and i would like to tell you all that my dog was in this film at the baiting screen he was the pit like one, that was going to bite the man chained up. my dogs name was Colin and he stayed away filming for a week for this film. he was also in other things like crime watch uk and some other small parts. he won some dog shows but he has passed away now i miss him he was a great, true and loyal dog and we had some great times together but he got cancer which could not be treated so i had to get him put down that was the worst day of my life i hope this gives you some thing to look for in the film if you watch it again.<br /><br />thanks all

An ultra-modern house in an affluent neighborhood appears to be the cause of each of its inhabitants bizarre (and deadly) behavior. Or at least that is what Lara Flynn Boyle's character, Col Kennedy, argues. After a series of deadly occurrences in a gargantuan house next door, Col knows something has got to give. Mark-Paul Gosselaar also stars as the mysterious architect.<br /><br />My opinion: The House Next Door works because of Lara Flynn Boyle and the locations (beautiful house) and stylish sets. Boyle is a talented and dynamic actress, not to mention absolutely stunning. She brings credibility to her character and makes the film intriguing. Without her, it would have failed. "It's so alive" declares a prospective buyer in reference to the house. Yes, it is alive. But the story itself is not so much.<br /><br />Barring Boyle's presence, not much is happening here, as an enormous amount of the movie is spent watching or waiting to see how the house will affect its current owners. The results are predictable. But I liked it anyway. The cinematography lends the film a polished look. 8/10 on account of Boyle, the premise of an evil ultra-modern house, the locations and cinematography, and set decoration and wardrobe.

Steven Rea plays a forensic scientist thrust on the job in Sovie Russia in 1982..in the very first hours of his job a body of a murdered girl is brought in..he has his workers go back to look for evidence and they bring back five more bodies..this starts the story of the hunt for one of the worst serial killers in modern day history..It is a stark depressing dark movie that explores how the bureaucracy of the old Soviet Union indirectly contributed or caused the deaths of many of the killers victims.It also explores in Donald Sutherland's character how the proper usage of bureaucracy in a communist govt can help achieve the ultimate goal of finding a monster A gripping movie not for all but for those who like a good detective story that will hold your interest this is definitely a must see on a scale of one to ten.. 9

A young American woman visits her Irish roots and fends off a druid witch who is out to possess her. Sounds intriguing but after an interesting start, I got lost and spent most of the time wondering where it was going. The movie seems to be dithering in two directions -- are we watching the travails of the Irish-American woman battling her alcohol problem or are we watching a straight off horror flick about an evil witch that returns from the past? The director can't seem to decide. The two doesn't seem to gel and in the end you get nowhere. This could be so much better done and the story seemed to drag towards the end. This was most boring and disappointing.

I was but a babe in arms when George Lucas was wowing the world with his out of this world Saga chronicling the adventures of young Luke Skywalker and the notorious Darth Vadar but even today 20 years on I can appreciate the genius that is Lucas and the incredible imagination he's been blessed with. In A New Hope Lucas showed a new way to tell stories as he introduced us to such memorable characters as the plucky Princess Leia, the Rougish Han Solo and the spirited Luke Skywalker as well as that best loved of villains, the sinister Darth Vadar. In The Empire Strikes Back he went all out to show us Special Effects can add to a tale and managed to something no-one thought you could do on screen. He made a film with no specific end or beginning and it went down a treat. Return of the Jedi is a fitting end to a Saga that will stand the test of time.<br /><br />When The Empire Srtikes Back ended with encasing of the lovable Rouge Han Solo in Carbonite to be delivered to Jabba the Hut and young Luke reeling from the discovery of a terrible truth about his Father we were left with the feeling that things were going from bad to worse. Vadar it seemed had won the day. How we asked could the rebels ever recover from this blow? In Lucas stunning and captivating final chapter we are kept on the edges of our seats from Han's daring rescue from Jabba's palace to the the final climactic battle on the Death Star between Luke and Vadar as Luke struggles between fulfilling his duties as a Jedi and rebel fighter and attempting to reawaken the good he believes is still in his Father's soul.<br /><br />Old friends like the smooth talking Lando Calrissian and the ever lovable Chewbacca reunite for one final battle to end all battles as a new darker more dangerous enemy emerges in the form of the Emperor himself ( played by the brilliant Ian McDiarmiud.How he missed out on an Oscar is a mystery.) desperate to turn Luke to the Dark Side even if it means betraying his apprentice Darth Vadar.All in black with his red eyes,ghostly white disfigured face and sinister laugh he truly is a terrifying addition to the story and is the undisputed Master of the events that unfold. His new and improved Death Star spells disaster for the rebels but the brave group launch one last desperate attack to end the Empire's reign for good. <br /><br />Lucas managed to incorporate three different stories at once and keep the action going so that the audience is riveted. We watch in excitement as Han and Leia attempt to bring down the shield around the Death Star from the forest Moon of Endor with the help of some adorable Ewoks ( who I really do not believe take from the movie at all. In fact I feel they provide a sort reprieve from the tension of the battles at and in the Death Star) and hindered by legions of Stormtroopers and Imperial Officers. We cheer on Lando and the other pilots as they take on the mighty Imperial Fleet and risk life and limb to fly into the Deatn Star to destroy it once and for all. And we watch with bated breath as Vadar and the Emperor attempt to turn Luke to the Dark Side while he in turn tries to turn his Father back.<br /><br />But for me the most difficult and yet compelling battles is that going on inside Darth Vadar. For ROTJ is a battle of emotions and feelings. Vadar is caught between his loyalty to the Emporer and the Empire and his Fatherly inclinations to Luke. Never did I think that a mask could show emotion but some-how one can't but see the confusion and pain on Vadar's face during the final scenes as the Emporer turns on Luke. There is more depth and emotion to Vadar than I believed a villain, especially one more machine then man could have and that I think is what makes him so accessible. He is conflicted. The Apprentice as much as the Master. The Victim as much as the Villain. Without ruining the end too much Vadar's final scene is the most poignant and wonderful in the trilogy.<br /><br />So in conclusion what can I say. George Lucas is the master of the Saga. Star Wars is the most compelling and engaging Sagas I've seen in a long time and I have yet to see another Saga rival it. Return of the Jedi has all the ingredients necessary to provide the ending Lucas masterpiece deserves. It's action, suspense, romance, tragedy, redemption, joy all rolled into one and it's memorable characters, wonderful special effects and catchy music make both a great movie in its own right and an ending that Lucas can be proud of.

Usually when I don't see a show on an original run, I find it later on cable and realize it's a gem. The "Gimore Girls" is one of those rare exceptions. I'm glad I missed it.<br /><br />I truly despise shows that fill every minute of the actors space with rambling, stupid, boring banter. This is one hour of just that. The mother, Lorelei, made me wonder if she is Bipolar and off her lithium. She never stopped talking; every minute, every second, talking to every person she interacted with. Worse yet, her speech is childish and soooo, like, Valley Girl. She talked about guys, her hair, her mother, her clothes. Like, what's the sitch?? (for situation). I've watched this show three times and still don't get the point of this series. It's not a comedy, it's not a drama, it has no point except to make three generations of females in one family look like the "Girls" from Planet Mars. The males by comparison are smart and make the show somewhat watchable. If Lorelei ever existed and attempted to latch onto me with conversation, I'd have to mace her to get rid of her. She obviously doesn't know how to take a subtle hint to stop talking and start listening to someone else. She also doesn't know how to really notice the existence of others.<br /><br />In one show Lorelei comes home from a date close to 10 pm. She got the date after pursuing a guy she met at an auction. She goes into her daughter's room where the daughter asks how it went. She dithers on about how boring the guy was. Her date somehow got a few words in edgewise. Lorelei complained about how the man didn't stop talking (choke). Hopefully the date learned how fortunate he was.<br /><br />One other person here commented on how the mother acts like a teen and the daughter is the adult personality. Lorelei even dresses like her kid. This obviously 40-something mom dresses and looks like she hit the mall with her high school pals in tow.<br /><br />I thought that this show should have been followed by "Just Shoot Me," because that's exactly how I felt.

I watched this movie by chance, get curious by the trailer on TV. I like when I discover movies like this, little, tender stories about ordinary people. Even if the end is tragic, "The Man in the Moon" has some funny moments, especially in the first characterization of Dani, with her innocent and pure love affair with Court. It's really a beautiful, moving love story with 3 high points: the performance of Reese Witherspoon, who maintained her promises in the world of cinema, the beautiful cinematography by the "Old Lion" Freddie Francis and the fantastic score by James Newton Howard, which is really the soul of the movie. His themes (which deserved an Oscar nomination) are so intimate and lyric that it seems they had transformed the screenplay in music.

Plunkett & Macleane falls into my favourite genre of film (historical action adventure with comedy) which is probably why I rate it so highly.<br /><br />The action centres around a highwayman (Plunkett) and a layabout 'gentleman' who gets entangled with him and his schemes (Macleane). This leads to all sorts of escapades and adventures which are all tinged with comedy. There is also, of course, a love interest.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is made up of a number of vibrant, larger than life characters who add to the atmosphere of the film and show the excesses of the wealthy at this time.<br /><br />This is an enjoyable film with a fairly simple but worthwhile plot that provides plenty of entertainment.

I was lucky enough to get a DVD copy of this movie recently and have now seen it for the 2nd time. The 1st time was on late night TV in Australia more than 20 years ago but I could never forget this strange and bleak film..<br /><br />Not many people like this film at all because it is so unconventional - the fact that there is hardly any spoken dialogue in this move - we just hear the thoughts of characters - is only one unconventional aspect of it.<br /><br />Searching for a copy of this film I found out that the producer was dead, the main actor was dead, it was not kept in any British TV or film archives, that it was never released on video or DVD, that television networks around the world trashed it after their copyright ran out in the 80's. When it was first shown on TV in Australia there were no recordable devices for consumers.<br /><br />On the second viewing recently, I could see why it was unforgettable. At times it is very tense and unbearably claustrophobic very like a Harold Pinter stage play.<br /><br />Again, if anyone wants a DVD copy of this please email me and I'm sure we can work something out Regards Adam (whiteflokati@hotmail.com)

Its unfortunate that someone decided to spin off on the best horror movies of all time in my book. This poor copy steals lots of material from the first three films going as far as even copying how persons die and what will happen in the future to the key characters and it basically tries to cram in three films into one and fails. It fails even to create a good scary atmosphere for one (except with the odd exception where the impressive choral music brings back memories of the old films).<br /><br />The only thing we can be thankful for is that there has not been an Omen V.

The problem with making a movie like this, though, is that the finale, the crème-de-la-creme of the movie, the battle between the two souped-up ships, must be done well. Disappointingly, this scene in Ironclads is obviously done completely with little model ships in an overgrown tub. There's no tension, little explanation of what exactly is going on and what the timeframe is of the stand-off.<br /><br />The film takes quite a few liberties with the surrounding story, as all true stories do when converted to a movie, such as the Union traitor and most notably that of Betty Stuart (Madsen), a Virginia belle.<br /><br />It resorts to making a possibly-decent movie involving an interesting story on the ironclads to preaching about the evils of slavery. It was out of place in this historical drama, and was a cheap ploy to bring in the women viewers. It only succeeded in lessening the positives about the film.

You loose 100 IQ points just for tuning in. This show has to be awful, I refuse to tune in from just what I've seen in commercials. Where did they dig this guy up at anyway? Also, what do they intend to do next season? The secret is out. Everyone already knows the set up? Are they going to look for people who has been living under a rock to star in next season? Where are they going to dig up more stupid women? No wonder America is a big joke to outsider's,look what you are watching!!

I was on a British Airways flight from London to New York when I saw this movie. I wish I could have fallen asleep. The story line was very thin and the editing crew did their best to stretch it out as long as they did.<br /><br />Gary, played by Andy Garcia, was such an unlikable character that I found it hard to be supportive of him. Andy's acting ability is good but not good enough to make up for the poor writing in this movie.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell did a fine job with her portrayal of Linda, Gary's romantic interest. I can not say anything bad about Andie, I always enjoy her acting. The problem here is that the romance between Andy and Andie is so far fetched and unbelievable. The two do not make a good pair on the big screen.<br /><br />The end of the movie was almost as much of a let down as the movie itself. A nod from the Pope and all is forgiven, come on. The event that allows this movie to have a some what happy ending and that the writers would expect us to accept it is pathetic. Gary does not change and only by the death of a dear friend does his situation get better.<br /><br />There are tons of great movies that should be seen before this one. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />

This film is truly pathetic in every conceivable department. awful, awful, awful. It's only around eighty minutes long, but believe me you'll feel like you're watching an Andy Warhol film (then again twenty hours in the life of the empire state building would surely be far more interesting).<br /><br />Where to start... the putrid script, the disgusting cinematography, the so bad its bad acting, the spectacularly dismal effects, dreadful music, or just the wafer thin plot that thouroughly resembles a sieve. This film is an incoherent shambles<br /><br />A particularly noteworthy scene takes place outside a cafe when Dominic Pinon decides to shoot a cat, cue the waitress watching through the cafe window who comments with an average English accent "God damn". To right that woman. God damn this horrendous monstrosity.<br /><br />Everyone involved should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves. Let us hope that the director never finds the funding to work again.

As I said, the book was pretty good and this might have been a good movie if Melissa Gilbert hadn't been so horrible and unbelievable in the lead roll. What kind of accent was that suppose to be anyway? It sounded the same as her horrible Russian accent in another movie that I have seen her in. Every time she opened her mouth I cringed. It took 3 tries before I was able to watch the entire movie. Brad Johnson was good as the other lead. <br /><br />I really liked the beach location scenes. They added some much needed brightness to take your mind off of Melissa Gilberts depressing portrayal. I think they could have used San Francisco views more to their advantage though. It looked like the night scenes were actually SF, but I could be wrong. I don't recall the character in the book being this depressing. <br /><br />Please keep Melissa Gilbert out of any future movies that require an accent!

Dennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. Well worth seeing.

Telly Savalas put on a passable (but no better than that) performance as Pancho Villa, the notorious Mexican bandit/revolutionary in this account of Villa's raid on the town of Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. Villa is not really a historical figure who I'm overly familiar with, so I won't say much about the historical details of the film. As a movie, this isn't great, although it has a smattering here and there of both action and humour. Chuck Connors' performance as Colonel Wilcox, commander of the U.S. Army base near Columbus struck me as a bit over the top, and Clint Walker as Villa's Gringo sidekick Scotty didn't really do very much for me. The movie is obviously a pretty low budget effort of limited technical quality. For a movie with a runtime of only slightly over an hour and a half I have to say that this movie dragged in places, particularly in the last 20 minutes or so. Villa's raid into the United States was an interesting (if, in the overall scheme of things, not especially important) historical sidebar, and probably deserved better treatment than this. 4/10

Director Fabio Barreto got a strange Academy Nominea for his last movie O Quatrilho. Quatrilho is a bad movie, but in Bella Donna, Barreto did one of the Worst movies of All Time. His adaptation of the novel Riacho Doce is ridiculous. Think with me how poor brazilians fishermen speak a perfect english? In the film they do. There isn't a Screenplay, It's only a very long videoclip with a beautiful places and many sex scenes with Moscovis and Henstridge.

Worst movie on earth. I don't even know where to begin but I hope I can save another person from punishing themselves with this movie. When it comes to acting and lighting, this movie is similar to a bad porno without the sex. The actors are some of the worst I've ever seen, and couldn't have been worse even if they were trying to make a complete mockery of this movie. The movie must have had a record breaking low budget which I'm sure was wasted almost solely on the movie's cover. This movie has now become a running joke with friends of mine and has become the standard for comparing other garbage movies. I would like to point of that no other movie even begins to compare. I feel personally responsible for suggesting a friend and me watch this movie and am surprised she still considers me a friend after the torment I put us through. Don't see this movie!

Completely worth checking out. Saw it on MLK's birthday 2006 and it hit me big time. Sometimes it feels like we're all in a trap and are doomed to repeat the past no matter how much we try to change. All we can do is to keep on going and speaking out. Just keep on going. Don't mean to be a downer because that's not the point but maybe we need to get down before we see how much we need to work on ourselves. What happens when we keep being told by the best people like MLK what needs to happen to pull us out of our "dead end road" but we don't listen. I know that some of us do listen but how do we get the rest of the world to see things as they really are? Just keep going, I guess. This movie got me thinking even more about all of this so I guess it has done what it set out to do. That's what I consider to be a good movie or play or book or poem or speech or anything: something that gets you thinking and keyed up to move in an active direction instead of sitting stuck and bored and hopeless.

'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People' is an entertaining, if loose, adaptation of Toby Young's memoir of the same name. It's also a great title for helping to fill up the line requirement in IMDb reviews! The basic gist is the same as the book with certain incidents dramatised, but a romantic plot is added and the ending is certainly Hollywoodised. Simon Pegg, despite playing an essentially irritating person, is his usual likable and funny self and pretty much carries the film. Strange to think only a few years ago he was just a TV sitcom guy and now he's rubbing shoulders with Hollywood names. There's a good supporting cast and it's an amusing, easy watch - kind of a male 'Ugly Betty', but funnier.

There is part of one sequence where some water rushes into the sunken plane, everything else that happens in this movie is stock footage for Airport 77. You can even make out Jack Lemmon and Christopher Lee in some of the shots. A total rip off? Well almost by definition. There may be more stock footage in this film than in Plan 9 From Outer Space.<br /><br />All the new material, actors sitting around in an airplane set talking, is bland and terrible on every level. Dennis Weaver is totally wasted in a career low movie, though that's true for everyone other than this films director Fred Olen Ray, who uses one of this many necessary fake names in order to keep working.<br /><br />There is a level of scant professionalism that makes this film such a waste of time, it would actually be better if shot by someone with no technical knowledge at all, because Ray has just enough knowledge about how to put together a scene in the worst old school TV fashion that this film, like most of his films, is totally devoid of life. The worst kind of hack work. The worst kind of film. Boring.<br /><br />This type of film is a waste of money, an affair where the crew on all levels are ghosts hoping to get whatever scant pay check they can and that no one will see or know they appeared/ participated in this rip off. There are so many people who want to make movies it's disgusting to see Ray burn up the money given to do nothing more but fill time.<br /><br />His commentary track is interesting in that he has to start it by explaining that he is really Fred Ray as he isn't credited on the film itself. That tricked me into seeing it don't let it trick you.

Definitely, definitely the worst film I've ever seen, no questions asked! Contradictors of this opinion might argue that this title should not be judged by the same criteria as others, since it's an independent, low-budget film, but c'mon already – the amateurism and meager innovation is horrifying.<br /><br />Agreeing with everything that has been said about this film, for example the mind numbingly weak acting (when it's this bad you take another go at shooting the scene, god damn it), the thing I found the most annoying was the total lack of common sense in the script, assuming such a thing existed during the production. There was an obvious absence of a dialogue with respect for the viewers, the girls switched personalities several times and they seemed to show absolutely no sing of any rationality or even brains - five relatively fit girls against one slight female psychopath – gang up on her, why don't you?<br /><br />The only thing that can be regarded as somewhat of a conquest for this title is the camera not leaving the van at any time thus the viewer seeing everything from inside it - which is, as the rest of the film, a good idea executed exponentially dreadfully.<br /><br />…oh and by the way, this movie is NOTHING like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield or any other title filmed with a hand-held camera – this is an effect and not a trait! Used cleverly it can be breathtaking, but in this case it's an excuse for inadequate cinematography.

That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...<br /><br />None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!<br /><br />Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense. <br /><br />The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!<br /><br />3/10

Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a rich woman discovers her husband is cheating on her with a younger woman (Eva Mendes). She doesn't know what to do and friends Sylvia Fowler (Annette Bening), Edie Cohen (Debra Messing) and Alex Fisher (Jad Pinkett Smith) try to help.<br /><br />OK--there was no reason to redo the 1939 movie. That's a true classic and doesn't need to be updated and redone. Naturally it WAS done. This has gotten some of the worst reviews I've ever seen for a motion picture. I love the original and have seen it MANY times--I was constantly comparing it to that. Now this isn't a classic but it's not that bad.<br /><br />**MINOR SPOILERS!!!** First the bad--the story is old and was (badly) updated. Really--a man cheating on his wife is hardly shocking today. Meg Ryan (a wonderful actress) is pretty terrible here. Her face seems unable to change expression! I couldn't believe how bad some of her scenes came over. Eva Mendes is bad too--but it's not entirely her fault. Her role is badly written and she has to compete with Joan Crawford from the original. Smith's character (a tough lesbian) goes to pieces in an operating room. It IS funny...but it's showing that a strong woman instantly goes to pieces when confronting an emergency. Also the script inserts some clumsy passages where Ryan talks to her daughter about being yourself. In those moments it seems more like a Lifetime movie than anything else.<br /><br />Now the good--this movie retains the originals' decision to NEVER show a man on screen. This movie is about and for women--men aren't needed (BTW--I'm a man). Bening is just great as Fowler--whenever she's on screen the movie makes a great leap. Also Smith is just wonderful--she doesn't overplay (or underplay) her lesbian character too much. Messing is good too but she's not in this much. Bette Midler is just hysterical in a small role and Cloris Leachman pulls off the nothing role of a housekeeper. The direction is good too--especially during a fashion show sequence. I heard director Diane English purportedly had a lot of trouble directing her first full-length movie but it doesn't show in the final product. Also there are some clever references to the original (mostly certain lines) that were inserted with no fuss.<br /><br />I saw this in an audience full of women (there were a few guys but not many) and they loved it. The movie ends on an operating room sequence that had everybody howling. So--this wasn't needed but it's not the disaster people are saying it is. Also--people are saying we don't need a movie with all women. Well--why not? I see plenty of movies with all guys in the cast and no one complains about that! Ignore the complaints and bad reviews and see this. With a better performance by Ryan I might have given this an 8 or 9 but, as it is, I can only give it a 7.

For an independent film it scores well with reasonably high production values and a great cast. The acting is uneven but the plot is compelling. We could have used a bit more development of Wes Ramsey's character, but hey, the guy's fun to look at nonetheless! Mary Kay Place and Jacqueline Bisset are like icing on the cake.<br /><br />It's not surprising that it was controversial on its release. It presents a less than flattering portrayal of the Morman Church and its relationship with gays. While, like Brokeback Mountain, it's about tolerance and accepting one's own life, I found it to be more successful in conveying a positive message. It was more moving, too.

This movie was way too slow and predictable.I wish i could say more but i can't.If you enjoy action/adventure films,this is not one to see.I'd suggest you go see movies like;Behind Enemy Lines with Owen Wilson and Iron Eagle with Louis Gossett Jr.

I had a hard time sitting through this. Every single twist and turn is predictable. You're sitting there just waiting for it ... waiting for it ... and yes, there it is! Just as you predicted at the very beginning of the movie. Or 10 minutes out. Et cetera. <br /><br />Smart writing? No. <br /><br />Torture porn? No, there's no nudity. Other reviews calling this torture porn are most likely written by people on heavy drugs. Unfortunately there's no torture and no nudity (yes, no nudity).<br /><br />There's no suspense at all in this "thriller". The only good part about this movie is the ending, but I'm not going to spoil that.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 2/10. A 1/10 would be a horrible B-movie. This movie had better acting.

what can i say?, ms Erika Eleniak is my favorite blonde girl ever, and like a Italian American, fan number one of female beauty i can't forget this movie.<br /><br />you know i really don't remember a lot about the plot, or the situations or the other actors . i only can remember about drop dead gorgeous Erika and that in this film she looks better than ever, i really don't care if it was a bad movie or a good movie, i only care the nice moments i had been a teenager in Brooklyn just contemplating Erika's beauty.<br /><br />Well just to conclude if you are an Erika Eleniak's beauty fan like me definitely this film is for you.

Reality before reality TV? Copy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High"? A precursor to "Say Anything" that's grittier? I can't decide, but the soundtrack *is* the 80's--Blondie, Journey, REO Speedwagon, Devo, Lionel Richie, AND U2--I can't believe this, they would never throw all those genres together in a teen movie of today.<br /><br />I remembered this like a teenager--mainly the sex parts and not a hint of the altruism. Why? I was a horny teenager in the 80's. Watching it again, I just can't describe how much I love that Rose, play by Kimberly Richardson, turns out to be the voice of "Pepper Ann" in the 90's, and she was almost 30 when she was in Last American Virgin, playing alongside 16 year-olds--fantastic! Complete cheese, reality, fantasy, and comedy--with a sincere cherry on top.

Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.<br /><br />I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked.

This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too. <br /><br />The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).<br /><br />Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors).

Saying this movie is worse than asphyxiating on your own diarrhea is a generous understatement. The only thing more pathetic than this reprehensible piece of garbage of a movie is the shmuck getting paid by the producers to register a bunch of accounts to post fake appraise.<br /><br />If watching a poorly-acted, suspenseless, snoozer of a movie about Sloth from the Goonies kill people in a fashion that completely ignores every law of physics (pulling on an unrestrained person's legs, causing them to be ripped from the torso) is your idea of a good movie, then knock yourself out.<br /><br />No carbon-based lifeform with a functioning occipital lobe would consider in a million eons that this movie is scary or entertaining.

This movie is simply awesome.It was a very sensitive issue and movie was superb.This movie did not create any controversy in India (as far as i know) and its publicity was also kept low.Initially i thought that this movie would simply be a waste of time since most of the Indian directors and producers used to change the theme even though its very sensitive and adds a love story in original story and spoils the whole thing...most of the Indian viewers would agree on this topic if they remember Ashoka, Mangal Pandey,LOC etc..<br /><br />There have been so many movies in India which would have become milestone or mega hits if the love story part would not be unnecessarily added.<br /><br />But its treatment is pretty similar to Pinjar movie (also a must watch).<br /><br />If it counts then i would like to thank Anil Kapoor ( producer ) and Firoz Abbas Khan ( the director) for making such a great movie..

What an incredible story and what a beautiful film! Hat's off to Ben Daniels, Lavinia Currier and the great Honore de Balzac. This captivating film conveys the passion experienced by the characters so effortlessly and yet so powerfully. I watched it mesmerized, almost holding my breath as the story developed towards its inexorable end. This film's execution was almost flawless: simple and pure, it plays with our hearts, guiding us in understanding the strange platonic, absolute thus possessive bond between two creatures not meant to be part of each other's world. Both are capable of affection, yet ironically, it's the more "evolved" one who becomes dependent and possessive, unable to accept the other's freedom. It's one of the most fascinating and intriguing look at the many forms of love, and an incredible study on how oppressive and destructive human love can be sometimes. <br /><br />Only a rudimentary mind would associate this story with any kind of bestiality.

I was actually looking forward to this movie. The commercials made it look real cool and action packed. And I heard that Claire Daines' character was arrested for assault so I thought that maybe she would kick a lot of ass and that would be cool. BUT NOOOOOOOO!!. Their was hardly any action at all and the character were all kinda bland. The only saving grace was Omar Epps and even he didn't help this movie much.

This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The cast was fantastic, but the movie itself was horrible. It was so awful, I had to register just to say how bad it was.<br /><br />I watched this movie, and I wanted to break it every minute I watched. It could have been great. Had a great premise. If you're going to rob an armored car, and there's a homeless person which sees you, you have to do, what you have to do. For the main character to decide to get a cop killed, and kill his friends and co-workers after the homeless guy was already dead, it's just ridiculous. And yes, I'm sure there will be responses to this about how his conscious got to him, but come on.<br /><br />The main character crawled out the bottom of the armored truck, no one saw him. He blew up the stash of money and grabbed and dragged the cop right behind the other guards and no one saw him. He was able to get back in the armored car, and no one saw him... This movie had potential, but blew it.<br /><br />You couldn't pay me to watch this movie ever again! DON'T EVER watch it! Aggravating...

So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.<br /><br />The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.<br /><br />One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.

She has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' "Big," though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.

Bergman´s tale about how the hell of the war can drive a sensible couple of musicians to the barbarousness. With many memorable scenes throughout the film, I found particularly remarkable that close to the end where Ullmann and Von Sydow go in a boat completely surrounded by corpses of soldiers floating on the sea. A fascinating masterpiece!

Well, what can i say about this movie. I'm speechless. I could go on about how stupid this movie is forever though the one thing that REALLY pi*sed me off was the music. And to top it all off someone commented on how much they LIKED it. To them all I have to say is that it was ripped off from one of the best martial arts movies of all time Fistsof fury starring Bruce Lee. IF he was still alive and ever came across this movie he'd be horrified. the rest of the movie is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of tape. I say tape because a movie like that couldn't possibly have been shot on film.I now feel more stupid for wasting 30 minutes of my life watching it. The only reason why i even saw it was because my roommate downloaded it out of morbid curiosity. What is this world coming to.

Warning! Spoilers!<br /><br />This is your typical disney film.<br /><br />1.Policticly correct what with the foster home that has an even divison of races.<br /><br />2.Insults the viewers intellect with its simplistic lines.<br /><br />3.The boy's slezy father is almost directly taken from the Never Ending Story 2.<br /><br />4.In a world full of crime,disase,corruption,starvation and other proplems that need to be taken care of,only a losing team is worthy of divine intervention.UGHHHH!!!<br /><br />5.Did you know that angels don't like swearing?! Where the heck did that come from!<br /><br />6.In helping the team,the angel cause pain and humilation on the opposing team.Very angelic indeed!<br /><br />7.The team the angels are helping are called...can you guess...THE ANGELS! Disney at its worst!<br /><br />8."Just got his training wings." Brillent line!<br /><br />My conculsion:I did not like it at all.

With all the excessive violence in this film, it could've been NC-17. But the gore could've been pg-13 and there were quite a lot of swears when the mum had the original jackass bad-hairdewed boy friend. There was a lot of character development which made the film better to watch, then after the kid came back to life as the scarecrow, there was a mindless hour and ten minutes of him killing people. The violence was overly excessive and i think the bodycount was higher than twelve which is a large number for movies like this. ALmost every character in the film is stabbed or gets their head chopped off, but the teacher who called him "white trash" and "hoodlum" (though the character lester is anything but a hoodlum, not even close, i know hoods and am part hood, they don't draw in class, they sit there and throw stuff at the teacher). The teacher deserved a more gruesome death than anyone of the characters, but was just stabbed in the back. There were two suspenseful scenes in the film, but didn't last long enough to be scary at all. As i said, the killings were excessive and sometimes people who have nothing to do with the story line get their heads chopped off. If the gore was actually fun to see, then it would've been nc-17. Two kids describe a body they find in the cornfields, they describe it as a lot gorier than it actually was, they explained to the cop that there were maggots crawling around in the guys intestines. His stomach had not even been cut open so there was no way maggots were in his stomach, though i would've liked to see that. The acting was pathetic, characters were losers, and the scarecrow could do a lot of gymnastix stunts. I suggest renting this movie for the death scenes, i wont see it again anytime soon, but i enjoyed the excessive violence. Also, don't bother with the sequel, i watched five minutes of it and was bored to death, it sounds good but isn't. The original scarecrow actually kept me interested.

Finally! Third time lucky. This film has been always been on my mind, but my first viewing I forgot about it and only caught the second half of the film. Then only a couple months later I had the my second chance of watching of it, so I decided I would record it. Only to discover that my timer went off late and again I missed the first half of the flick. I wasn't going to allow that to happen again. So, when it came on TV again, I thought bugger it I'll wait until it comes on, then I will record it. And it was a good choice. I would have just watched the film, but they always put on weeknights around midnight. <br /><br />After discovering a hole in their crowded cell, nine prisoners escape their confinement to track down the key of the universe, which a fellow prisoner known as the Counterfeit King said he had hidden. They think that this key could be an opening for a hidden loot of counterfeit bills. On this journey they naturally see this as an opportunity to pick up their lives before they were gaoled. Although things don't turn out the way that they intended to, with most of the criminals plans going astray. <br /><br />"9 Souls" is an perky spiritual journey from Japanese director Toshiaki Toyada, which flung it's viewers into a film of two totally different halves. The first half of the story plays out more like a psychical comedy with the criminals bonds and the situations they find themselves being the selling point, but all that makes way to a moralistic and consequence drama-packed second half, where the real trouble begins with some quite nasty and bloody moments replacing the goofball tone it started off with. While, the first half is quite amusing with its on the road, screwball doodling and offbeat banter. But it's really the genuinely haunting latter half with it's peculiar turn of events that hit you so hard with some surprising touches that make you really sympathise for these very human characters. Even though they are not truly innocent from their crimes, you just become entrenched by these flesh-out characters in the first half that when you see them spiral into their downfall, you know it's an effective drama when you become shell-shocked in the dramatic change. The nine characters get enough screen time to truly understand their personal story and what weakness would eventually bring them down. The way the plot works out is that Michiru and Torakichi are the lead characters and we mostly see it from their perspectives. The escapism tale is an unquestionably engaging character study that's clear in it's goal and puts to you many questions on society and the path you choice to take to escape life and free yourself from these restraints. <br /><br />While, the symbolic story is full of clarity and vividly told. The visual element doesn't go by unnoticed, because there's just a dreamy and trance-like vibe that channels itself into the unique atmosphere. What HIGHLY contributed to that factor and gave the film a lift was the sweepingly, moody instrumental rock soundtrack. The mellow atmospheric gel it was able to create in many scenes left me rather breathless with the everlasting emotions it was able to provoke. Simply beautiful and downright powerful control on that front. The pacing for such an long film ( 2 hours ) seems to breeze by and editing is swiftly done, because we are just so wrapped up in it all. The hypnotic photography is crisp in detail. While, the performances by the cast as a odd bunch of criminals are that of high quality with each one providing enough personality and features to separate themselves. <br /><br />I found "9 Souls" to be a pleasing and quite an amazing surreal film that stirs up the emotions and then it smacks you with an almighty wallop when it changes direction. Highly recommended.

I've just finished viewing the 1st disc in a 4-disc (26 episodes) collection created in conjunction with the UCLA Film & Television Archive (S'More Entertainment, Inc.). So far (aside from the 1st episode), the image quality is quite good. The DVD box is shown on the title page here on IMDb.<br /><br />"Mr. Peepers" is just as charming as when I first saw it (5-years old at the time) and Wally Cox is truly endearing in this role. If you're in the mood for quiet comedy that sneaks up on you, as opposed to hitting you over the head, you'll treasure this chance to experience all the wonderful characters you might remember from your childhood. Although some of the gags are a bit corny, most are ingenious and well-executed...and even the corny ones are fun. This is one TV series that lives up to my early childhood memories of it.

One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer. They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally made this film in 1934.

Any true wrestling fan would have to consider this Wrestlemania to be one of, if not the best of all time. It was packed with excitement and surprises. One of the greatest matches of all time was between Shawn Michaels and Steve Austin with special guest ref Mike Tyson. The show that Michaels put on was unbelievable, especially considering the shape that his back was in and that this was his last match.

I rented The Matrix Revisited with a friend of mine. We both loved The Matrix and we both love filmmaking so we wanted to see what was going on behind the scenes of The Matrix. It turns out that The Matrix Revisited tells you hardly anything about the art of filmmaking or even how The Matrix was made. It is basically a huge commercial for The Matrix, a movie that the target audience of The Matrix Revisited has already seen!<br /><br />If you really want to know about the process and the troubles and the stress and the detail that went into making of The Matrix, look no further than the bonus features on the original DVD of The Matrix. There are things they show in those documentaries that I had not even realized had to be done or was done. The Matrix was such a difficult and challenging film to make that it deserves more credit than a "documentary" that's about as informative and interesting as an MTV special.

The movie takes place during the year 1940 and the French are about to loose the war.<br /><br />The movie includes all genres: comedy, romantic, murder and history. It is probable the historical part may be not as probable as the rest.<br /><br />It is not, however, a big laugh movie but the occasional large smile!

Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.<br /><br />I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.<br /><br />I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you.

Sergio Leone spins in his grave... If there was any film that tramples upon a man's life work its this one. The lead character's "lone wolf" bravado is uninspiring and lame, and the script was apparently written by a monkey with an eight grade education. Whoever's idea this was should be horse whipped. The only reason I'm spending time trashing it is because there's a 10 line minimum. Sergio Leone's family should sue, not because its crap, but because now it's immortalized as crap by MST 3000. Shame. Disgust. I blame Hollywood...at least Gary Busey makes crap that wont offend anyone but cocaine users and weapon experts...this film is pure blasphemy.

The movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.<br /><br />Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly. <br /><br />Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in " Meet the parents", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.<br /><br />The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.<br /><br />4 out of 10.

This one tends to get slighted by a lot of critics and Kurosawa fans, but I thought it was wonderful. It's an episodic multi-character study of Tokyo's poorest, who live in a city literally made from garbage. Though it looks like an A-Bomb just hit, the film has a sort of serene beauty thanks to the glorious use of Technicolor. The title comes from the sound made by the insane young man who drives an imaginary trolley through the slum. All the characters were wonderful and all the stories engrossing, but perhaps the most tragic concerns the man and his young son who live in an abandoned car. When not searching for food, they spend their spare time using their imagination to build their dream house. An emotionally moving and beautiful film.

Starting on or around 1965 American movies took a turn for the shocking and the iconoclastic which was great for the times -- sort of the seeds that would pave the way for grittier, daring dramas. However, because the very decade that gave birth to these films was so ruled by its own convictions, most all of the films released at this period have dated. CACTUS FLOWER is no exception. Its very title suggests a "sunny" romantic comedy with occasional lapses into the risqué. This is not to say that it's a bad thing: quite the contrary, films about risqué subject matter have to begin somewhere and America being a culture rooted in specific traditions, themselves laced in deep hypocrisies, shocks itself for the sake of it when seeing an indirect reflection of the mores of the time. Meanwhile, European films address these same situations, walk off looking like a million bucks, and have a longer shelf-life because what we consider scandalous, they shrug off, say "Next," and move on. <br /><br />Toni Simmons (Goldie Hawn in her breakout role), a young, very sixties bright young thing, is carrying on with a much-older dentist named Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), who has commitment issues. He can'r marry her: he's already married. Toni decides instead of wilting away she actually wants to meet his wife and "set things straight." Into the picture comes his assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (a luminous Ingrid Bergman, returning to American cinema after a twenty-year absence), a woman closer to his age who acts as if she and he had the perfect marriage and household. There is a reason for this: she has harbored quiet emotions for Julian, emotions he is unaware of, even when he asks her to play his wife to ward Toni off from wanting to step their relationship further. And then he steps it up a notch when Toni's blissfully innocent actions veer the action off into the unexpected and he introduces Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston) as Stephanie's "lover". By the way, Harvey is also an older gent who is having an affair with a much younger woman (Eve Bruce) whom he also lies to in one very funny scene.<br /><br />It's funny how the person whom we're looking for is the one who's always been there. What could have been a thankless role for Rick Lenz who plays Igor Sullivan, Toni's next door neighbor, turns into the man who not only sees the true beauty in fellow outcast Stephanie but the one who saves Toni at the start from killing herself. (Not the stuff of comedy, suicide. Then again, this is not your average comedy.) And needless to say is Ingrid Bergman's subtle, poignant portrayal of a woman who's somehow missed her chances at love, who's become prickly, who due to a lie said to another she becomes the real person she was always meant to be. I can't imagine anyone else in this quiet but deep role.<br /><br />Movies like these can be enjoyed at face-value and seen as escapist fun -- a product of its times -- or be viewed for the deep symbolism that, like its title, it carries deep within. It's a tricky film, the same way Hawn's and Bergman's performance are equally tricky because in seeming so simple, devoid of flourish and pose, neither come out and proclaim what they are about. Their acting becomes "not really acting" but playing real people, warts and all. CACTUS FLOWER is a story that never appears to take itself too seriously, but reveals itself to be deep and very human after all.

carrot top in a full length movie, enough said. only reason this doesn't get a one is through my personal voting system of only one 1 and one 10, and this is no extreme ops. horrible god awful. there are some movies that are so bad they are unintentionally funny, then there are movies that make you physically unwell and then there are those that lead to serious contemplation of suicide. burn all copies of the movie, shoot anyone who had non creative input on this movie, torture anyone with any creative input and as for the star, there are only so many things that can be said online, but he should be begging for the final ten seconds of existence with a severed head by the time the work is done.

All right, let me start by saying I love the original RS for the 64. The graphics were new, the ships were really fast and cool. The missions were a challenge, but you had a strategy to come up with. The computer didn't tell you every step of your mission, you could wander and explore. <br /><br />That's the first thing that's wrong with RL, everything you do is under a timetable and controlled by other people. I mean, shouldn't you, as the leader, be telling people how to handle each and every mission? <br /><br />And speaking of missions, why do they intersperse the original trilogy with completely made up crap? Never mind.<br /><br />I was so waiting for this game when I heard they were going to allow you fly through the asteroid field from Empire Strikes Back. I think anyone who is a fan of the films wanted to do this. So, they give it to you. It's the stupidest level in the game. You start by flying through the asteroid field with ties chasing after you, and your whole objective is to get farther into the field while shooting the ties. You have to kill them all to get ahead. Hey, remember how many Han killed when he was in the field? None, they all had poor piloting skills compared to him. I just wanted to be able to dodge the asteroids as they came at me, but instead I have to use my automatic aim guns to kill ties behind me.<br /><br />That was the biggest disappointment, you have no control over your flying, everything is sluggish. All except for the A-Wing, probably the fastest and most maneuverable ship in the entire fleet. But, oh yeah, didn't Han say the Falcon was? Anyway...<br /><br />You finally get to the Battle of Endor. Here is the ultimate level, you get to destroy the death star, everyone's first instinct is to pick the Falcon and be the leader. But, of course, you get there and have to do stupid pre-chosen strategies like finding (not to mention deciphering the difference between) the tie-bombers. This is impossible in the falcon, by the time you have spotted one group the frigate gets destroyed. The only way to get passed this part is to pick the A-Wing. After this you have to attack the star destroyers and that's a real stupid chore. This game makes you feel like you're the only one defending the rebel alliance.<br /><br />After you frustratingly get through that 'fun' fight, you get to the death star. And here, you might think 'yay! I get to destroy the death star', and again, like in the Asteroid field, you have to do some tedious thing while narrowly getting passed the tunnels of impending doom. Your mission is to protect the ship in front of you, remember that from the Return of the Jedi? It's so moronic because if you pick the falcon, you'll die because you're not maneuverable enough, but if you pick the x-wing, you have to keep locking and unlocking your s-foils. So it's a choice to either kill the bad guys, or try to catch up to Lando, who apparently doesn't know how to maneuver. Thus dying in the process.<br /><br />The bonus stages aren't even worth aiming for as each level just gets more and more frustrating. It makes me feel the way I did when I saw the new three films, upset and in need of killing something. Lucky for me, Smash Bros Melee exists.<br /><br />I hope with the Wii they come up with something a lot better and have the original trilogy levels to full capacity. I'm going to sell this game the first chance I get.

BLACK WATER has to be one of the best Australian movies I've seen in many years. My girlfriend and I sat gripping each others hands, jumping in all the right spots. This is as much a crocodile film as OPEN WATER was a shark film. In other words, the creatures are merely part of the dilemma, the trap in which people find themselves through circumstances. How director's Andrew Traucki and David Nerlich wring as much suspense and terror from such a modest situation is amazing to watch unfold. And when I say terror, its not overblown, artificially constructed squirm moments, but more little touches that when you ask yourself "how would I feel in that situation" lead you to conclude "scared witless". Performances were great, the pacing and gorgeous cutaways to other life in the mangroves were excellent and the ending moments of the film felt very right. This is a fitting feature debut for two directors who should rightfully by very proud. Go and watch this very beautifully shot and acted suspenseful film.

"A Thief in the Night" is a film that was generally ignored by movie fans at large due to its low-budget (which was obvious) and its subject matter--the Rapture of true Christian church and the fate of those left behind. Nevertheless, it was a gripping story that held the viewer and definitely made him or her review their relationship with Jesus Christ. It touched everyone--showing even a pastor who preached the Word, but did not believe it, knowing exactly why he was left behind. This movie, and its sequel "Distant Thunder," are must see movies. Even with the new "Left Behind" series coming out, telling the same story with a much higher budget, the impact is still the same--"A Thief in the Night" broke the ground of this genre and will always be remembered.

I think James Cameron might be becoming my favorite director because this is my second review of his movies. Anyway, everyone remembers the RMS Titanic. It was big, fast, and "unsinkable"... until April 1912. It was all over the news and one of the biggest tragedies ever. Well James Cameron decided to make a movie out of it but star two fictional characters to be in the spotlight instead of the ship. Well, onto the main review but let me remind you that this is all opinion and zero fact and the only fact that will be present is an event from the film.<br /><br />So our two main characters are Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Rose (Kate Winslet). They're not annoying too much but watch this and you'll find out why they could become annoying ( http://tinyurl.com/ojhoyn ). The main villain I guess is bad luck, fate, hand of God (no blasphemy intended), or just plain Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane). Combine all of the above and what do you get?! Oh yes! We get a love story on a sinking boat. The supporting characters are the following: My personal favorite, Mr. Andrews (Victor Garber)(idk he was so nice), Lovejoy(David Warner), Murdoch(Ewan Stewart), Lightoller (Jonathan Phillips), Captain Smith(Bernard Hill), Molly Brown(Kathy Bates), and many more. We also got the present day treasure hunter, Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton). They add something to the story, something good. The action in here is awesome, especially in the second half, the drama as also good. In the end you can have your eyes dropping rainstorms or silent tears. The story is simple and it works. A treasure hunter seeks the Heart of the Ocean and instead finds a drawing of a woman wearing the said diamond. She calls and tells her tale on the RMS Titanic. Two lovers separated by social class and ultimately, the fate of the ship. Everything about the story works and there are very few flaws. I give Titanic, an 86% awesome