Datasets:

Deysi

/

split-imdb

like 0

"Direct-to-video" is a phrase that never sounds promising to the consumer unless its a direct-to-video sequel to something that went direct-to-video in the first place. Despite this, studios have insisted on releasing numerous direct-to-video sequels over the years to cult hits. I don't think it even needs to be mentioned that these sequels rank among some of the worst titles of all time, including THE HITCHER II, STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, and CRUEL INTENTIONS 3. It's fitting that ROAD HOUSE 2 was helmed by Scott Ziehl as he was also the man in charge of ruining the Cruel Intentions series. Like his entry in the Cruel Intentions trilogy, Ziehl takes elements that made the first ROAD HOUSE a great guy flick, and rehashes them with no success whatsoever. This is no sequel, this is a remake all the way. Various lines from the original are repeated, plot points cut and pasted, and scenes are replicated almost shot-for-shot from the first one. The one thing that could not be duplicated were the amazing fight scenes, which made ROAD HOUSE what it was. Here, we get clumsily directed fight sequences that are either too short or too long and seemingly planned out and shot within an hour. Compare that with its predecessor's fight scenes that look like they took months and months to prepare. Ziehl is capable of directing action as he did well with the 2001 remake of EARTH VS. THE SPIDER, but none of the talent shown there comes through in this mess. It's not completely his fault, as the screenplay is very, very poorly written and clunky. I don't care if something goes direct-to-video, a good script is still required. Someone should keep that mind while continuously churning these low-budget, direct-to-DVD movies out. Skip it entirely. 1/10

***MILD SPOILERS*** Dear Inman, Kind words are hard to find for me to describe the movie I have just been subjected to that stars you. The problems are far and wide and painful for me to recount. . . yet I feel I must, if only to prevent others from suffering the same anguish as I did. This is NOT a film for anyone under 50, it's sloooowwwww, soooooo slowwww, and when the big reunion of Ada and Inman happens. . .the biggest and most important scene in the film, NOTHING happens, it is a epic letdown. Now, like the director should have done, I will keep my words short and end with this warning, your film is disjointed, boring, has no flow and Jude Law is tragically mis-cast, he showed more emotion as a robot in A.I. - be warned, the film should be retitled . . . Bored Mountain. Love, Ada

Writer-director Patrice Leconte takes a universal and potentially bottomless subject - friendship - and turns it into a flat and meaningless farce, despite A-list actors, fine cinematography and elegant production design. It's all in the plot, and the plot is laughable. "Teach me how to be likable", art dealer François Coste (Daniel Auteuil) tells a random stranger (Dany Boon), and that about sums it up. We learn next to nothing about friendship, and Daniel Auteuil may be a fine actor, but not one minute do we believe he could be the cut-throat egoist the script depends on him to be. Just as we hope the travesty is over, Leconte pulls one of his usual cathartic third acts, fast-forwarding from damage to disaster. Like François's treasured Greek vase, everyone and everything in this movie is a fake. Leconte's only asset is Julie Gayet in the part of Coste's business partner Catherine, looking swell and sexy despite a major mishap of a haircut.

And this is a great rock'n'roll movie in itself. No matter how it evolved (at point being a movie about disco), it ended up as one of the ultimate movies in which kids want to rock out, but the principal stands in their way. Think back to those rock'n'roll movies of the 50's in which the day is saved when Alan Freed comes to town with Chuck Berry to prove that Rock & Roll Music is really cool and safe for the kids, and Tuesday Weld gets a new sweater for the dance. Forward to the 1979, repeat the same plot, but throw in DA RAMONES, whom no one then realized would become one of the most influential bands of the next quarter century (and then for the obligatory DJ guest shot, "The Real" Don Steele). Throw in, too, all the elements of a Roger Corman-produced comedy-exploitation film, except for the two-day shooting schedule, some of the familiar Corman repertory players like Clint Howard, Mary Wournow and Dick Miller (there since "Bucket of Blood"), and you've got one of the great stoopid movies of the day. One of the few films that uses deliberate cheesiness and gets away with it. I showed the new DVD to a friend who could only remember seeing parts of it through a stoner- induced haze at the drive-in, and he agreed that this is one of the great movies to be watching drunk, not the least for the lovely leading ladies and the great Ramones footage.

Don't listen to most of these people. ill give you a better review of this movie which me and my friend love! Its about Jill Johnson, played by Camilla Belle, who babysits at the Mendrakis' house and someone breaks in. if you're wondering how he got in the house, he went through the garage most likely. so anyway, don't listen to, "the worst acting". it has amazing acting. with a great story. I think that there are 2 benefits that Jill has. 1. shes a fast runner and is on the track team. 2.she got out alive! lol.<br /><br />it is a cool movie and quite scary. check it out, you will be happy with this masterpiece. don't listen to the other people on the site. its very good. trust me, i am good at reviewing movies. I'm a future movie critic. i totally want to buy this movie. and you will too when you see it. it is amazingly awesome.

Randy Bowers (John Wayne) comes upon the Half Way House at just the right time to take a break from the trail, and discovers a slew of dead bodies inside, among them a man he was supposed to deliver a message to - Ed Rogers, proprietor of the establishment. He's observed by the dead man's niece Sally (Alberta Vaughn), from behind a hidden room, where she remained unobserved during the carnage.<br /><br />"Randy Rides Alone" was directed by Harry Fraser. He uses a filming technique here as in other of his films, where he fast forwards the action from one location to another, usually involving a rider on a horse. It's pretty well done and appears quite innovative in these 1930's era Lone Star Westerns.<br /><br />Pre-Gabby George Hayes is on hand, sans whiskers, and this is the first time I've seen him as a villain. In fact it took a few scenes to realize it was him in a dual role, first as hunchbacked businessman "Matt the Mute", communicating via pencil and paper, only to turn into Marvin Black, leader of a gang of outlaws. Black's gang was responsible for the murders at Half Way House, in an attempt to coerce Sally into selling out to Matt/Marvin. Another staple player is here as well, Yakima Canutt as a Black henchman named Spike. Interestingly, Yakima portrayed a villain named Sam Black in another Fraser/Wayne oater, "Neath the Arizona Skies".<br /><br />There's a fair amount of time-killing horseback riding back and forth between Black's Gang and the Sheriff's posse, as John Wayne's character maneuvers to expose the bad guys. In the end, he saves the day by securing Sally Rogers' thirty thousand dollars, at the expense of destroying the Half Way House, where he exchanges some sticks of dynamite for the loot in a safe. Greedy Marvin Black attempts to open it with his six-shooter, and the explosion is a fitting end for the villain. In his best "Aw shucks" attitude, John Wayne falls under the spell of the pretty Sally Rogers, and alas, Randy rides alone no more!

At the opposite end of the spectrum from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is David Hemmings' utterly inferior adventure regarding the salvage of a World War II-era plane with a valuable cargo. Assets include beautiful New Zealand settings, Brian May's energetic music score and some dandy helicopter flying and jet boat chases. The bad, however, far outweighs the good. Donald Pleasence hams as perhaps never before; half of his dialog is almost unintelligible. George Peppard attempts an Australian (I think) accent, then gives it up halfway through. Lesley Ann Warren is at her most irritating. Ken Wahl is, well, Ken Wahl. The dialog is painful to hear and Hemmings' direction is largely inept. The script is not only obvious but terrible. Jokes fall flat, scenes carry no punch and continuity is virtually non-existent. According to the end credits, two men were killed piloting jet boats during the making of the film. What a waste.

Stewart is a distinguished bachelor and a successful executive who is about to marry his fiancée Janice Rule but instead gets involved with a capricious, sensual art dealer (Kim Novak) who turns out to be a Greenwich Village witch… Novak desires earnestly and intensely to love, but is unable to feel it...<br /><br />Stewart slowly falls in love with her, and looks for a way to free her from her witch-spell... Novak resents his well-intentioned concern, as does her Siamese cat, Pyewacket... Still, Stewart continues in his attempts to change her into a loving, feeling woman as he aspires to marry her...<br /><br />Also blocking his way are such talented supporting actors as Novak's brother (Jack Lemmon), a silly, charming sorcerer who can walk nonchalantly through walls; a terrible author who is writing a book about witchcraft; and the Head of the Association of Manhattan Witches, none other than the incredible Hermione Gingold...<br /><br />Novak's Aunt Queenie (Elsa Lanchester), unlike her other relatives, is a tender witch who accepts that nothing should prevent the course of true love... She aids and stimulates them in turning Novak into the woman of Stewart's dreams, for a happy ending...<br /><br />If you like to see a lightweight comedy about magic, fantasy and love; beautiful cinematography; stunning use of color; and with an exceptional cast; don't miss this enjoyable and amusing movie…

This is a really strange film--and that is NOT a bad thing. It is a combination of a neo-realistic film about the homeless AND a fairy tale. I'm sure that some may find this movie a bit too strange, but I loved it. Once again, this director brings together a wonderful cast of everyday people (not actors) and gets a great ensemble-type performance. Although not nearly as sad as Umberto D, both movies have a very similar point to make--this one just does it in a very absurdist way. Ignore the cheesy special effects--after all, it was made in the early 1950s and special effects aren't terribly important anyway (or at least they shouldn't be in films). Instead, just sit back and enjoy the very strange and silly ride. Unless you are a total curmudgeon, you'll have a ball.<br /><br />By the way, since I first reviewed this film, I have seen another DeSica directed film that is an absolute must-see and that is THE CHILDREN ARE WATCHING US. While not a fantasy or light in spirit like MIRACLE IN MILAN, a great film nevertheless.

Awful! Awful! Awful! Drab, unimaginative, predictable - and with all the usual suspects. Exactly the sort of film the Irish Film industry shouldn't be making. And with the added bonus of a treacle-coated ending. A sickening example of how talent & originality is by-passed in favour of an almost aggressive mediocrity. Yes - the children are sweet. Yes - it almost looks like it's done professionally. But this is film making by numbers, a direct smash and grab on what the director obviously thinks is 'success' - a film which patronises and despises the audience. It's quite amazing that Working Title would pour £3m into this rubbish. But then, they paid for Love Actually. Don't waste your money.

Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! <br /><br />I was appalled. <br /><br />Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.<br /><br />What a pity. <br /><br />Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.<br /><br />Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.<br /><br />Shame shame shame on what they do!!

The only reason I checked this film out was to see the "early" Kim Bassinger. That, and the fact that my TV guide said it was a "gripping suspense", and it was three-star rated. The rating must have come from the man who wrote this drivel because the only suspense in this movie was whether I would finish it or not. Robert Culp turns in what has to be the "disaster" of his career as a cop who is not even close to being believeable. At one point, EVERYBODY is a suspect, including a frail old woman. If you want to deliberately set out to watch a badly written, badly directed, badly acted movie...then go for it. It may make you appreciate fine films by comparison. I wish I had that hour and thirty six minutes back.

This movie is based on the art of Frank Frazetta, the mythical fantasy illustrator. Some of the characters are straight out of his paintings (the Death Dealer being the best example). Surprisingly, the animation manages to keep the feeling of the original art. Bakshi is well known for his heavy use of rotoscope (the technique of tracing a live action sequence) and this film is no exception. However, since the subject of the movie is quite realistic (all characters are humans), this works pretty well.<br /><br />But what I really like here is the plot: for once we have a story with interesting characters and nice action sequences, a really hideous villain and a gorgeous babe. This movie has the feeling of the best Conan comics, not surprisingly since Roy Thomas is the writer of the Marvel series of our favourite Cimmerian! This is a far cry from the crappy live action Conan, not to speak of all the B-movie of the genre.<br /><br />Definitely recommended!

When I first saw the ad for this, I was like 'Oh here we go. He's done High School Musical, but he can't coast along on that so now he's making appearances on other Disney shows'. Personally, I love The Suite Life and I'm a big fan of Ashely Tisdale. But for some reason, I'm not too keen on Zac Efron, although all my friends think he's the best thing since Jesse McCartney. But he really annoys me. Anyway, I watched the show (taking a break from English coursework) and was pleasantly surprised. The performances were good all round, especially from the regular characters on The Suite Life, and Zac Efron wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. All in all, a pretty good show.

And I am afraid that I cannot imagine why. It really is a genuinely dire and exceptionally boring film. In some ways it is reminiscent of early science fiction when every set had been knocked up on a Hollywood back lot out of whatever was lying around. From the minuscule and unconvincing set (snipers seem to be about ten meters away) apparently made of plaster, to the actors who are also apparently made of plaster with "amusing" stereotypes painted thinly on top, to the oddly warm pool in a frozen cave, to the survival of the cast uninjured when medium artillery shells burst a few meters away on open ground, and finally the awful script that reads like a training manual more than a film.... I really cannot say how dull this is. Even the opportunity to see whether the young James Dean survived wasn't enough to keep me watching for more than an hour. This really is one to be avoided at ALL costs.

Though not Hal Hartley's best work (my personal favorite is "Surviving Desire"), there is still much to like about this movie, especially for fans of Hartley's dialogues. Even to audiences new to Hartley, I would definitely recommend this movie over the sophomoric "Dogma." This movie is more intelligent, truer to its source material (the Bible), and more fun than any of the other pre-millennium apocalypse movies.<br /><br /> This movie is actually part of the French "2000 As Seen By." (2000 Par Vu) series; as such, it is perhaps even a lower-budget film than Hartley's other works. While the need for simple scenes shot with digital camera is understandable in this context, the main problem with this movie is the unfortunate overuse of the blurry/jittery effect. I'd be happy to never see this effect used in a movie again; especially at the beginning, it almost makes the movie unwatchable. But overlook this flaw, and you'll be treated to a fine film. Especially notable is Magdalena (played by P.J. Harvey) relating how Jesus saved her from being stoned to death; a short scene I found surprisingly moving. (Despite the fact that it was NOT Mary Magdalene that this happened to; the woman in the Bible was unnamed.)<br /><br />

One of my favorite movies, with a very nostalgic ending. The movie is about the Sullivan family, obviously Michael Sullivan (the father) is one of the main members of the mafia, the killer to say it this way, and an expert one. One of the kids wants to know the work of his father (a terrible mistake), so he hides on his father's car and well, he sees Tom Hanks in action to say it this way.<br /><br />Mafia doesn't rules, in Mafia nobody wins, when they want you out, they take you out. Of course you can see anyone who works at the mafia with a giant house, the best car in the world, whatever you like, but make a wrong work, or make something your "boss" doesn't want, and you're fired, and killed.<br /><br />You can see what I mean in the movie, Sullivan Jr. sees something he didn't had to see, and well, almost all his family gets killed for that "wrong thing" his son did. The movie is really entertaining, you see how the Sullivan's live after being chased by the mafia, or kinda of that.<br /><br />This movie is kinda of sad, shows us about revenge, those dirty works people do, almost everything you like. Hopefully the guy is reading this comment doesn't works for the mafia, and if you work at the mafia make yourself a favor and get the hell out of the country before you get killed by your boss and their workers.<br /><br />This movie receives: 10/10

First of all, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever, Plan 9 From Outer Space not withstanding. Coleman Francis deserves that title. I present Exhibit B, Glen or Glenda.<br /><br />The first half of the movie consists of a surprisingly thoughtful exploration of crossdressing, especially since it was made in 1953. The last 15 minutes of movie are also not bad as well.<br /><br />This is not to say the movie doesn't have problems. Bela Lugosi was totally extraneous, intoning odd lines. Poor Bela looked like even he wasn't sure what was happening at times. The acting was decidely wooden, though no worse than a period Universal B movie. The long dream sequence that makes up the middle of the film was totally bizarre; more like a vaguely menacing stag film than a dream sequence. The Alan/Ann story, the supposed original focus of the film has a tacked on quality about it.<br /><br />No, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever. He was able, at least for part of this movie, to make an earnest social statement. When Coleman Francis tried to do that in Night Train To Mundo Fine (aka Red Zone Cuba), it just ended in chaos. Glen or Glenda is at least watchable without Robot help.

I had always heard about this great mini-series, but viewed it for the first time this week, July of 2007. I can see why it started the careers of so many young actors. The story is intriguing and gives wonderful insights into the period before and during the Civil War. I cared about the characters and how their lives evolved during this period. Some of them were stereotypes, but they still helped me see how people thought during the 1800's. Many historical facts were thrown into the story and it was interesting to see history books come to life. The costumes and sets were gorgeous! I thoroughly enjoyed watching both parts I and II. Part III is a disappointment.

The Sea Is Watching has been made from an original Akira Kurosawa script, and it is indeed a lush and warm film. Watching it will be a pleasure !<br /><br />Kei Kumai as director is certainly no equal to the old but everlasting master (particularly the mass scenes in the beginning of the film has some terrible acting), but the overall mood and scenery is very enjoyable. Another thing that is missed here: Kurosawa always managed to let the characters be so much more then what they are actually showing and doing.<br /><br />Probably that was his magic on set while shooting; and just maybe this script was not fully up to par yet.<br /><br />Maybe we just miss the eye of the master.<br /><br />This is one lovely and sweet film, but it is no Kurosawa. To expect that might well be very silly...

Movies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.

...dislike this movie and everyone would understand why. The plot is poor, so is the acting. But in my opinion it is better than Halloween 5, although even this does not give many surprising moments. A few scenes are really well directed. But these few moments do not deliver the reason to rent it. I do not despise violence in movies, but H6 features extraordinary strong and bloody scenes which do not fit to the tradition of the Halloween-Movies. The most sucking aspect about H6 is the lack of tension. No comparison to the first masterpiece.<br /><br />Halloween 6 only gets 4 out of 10 stars from me. If you want, rent it. But don't expect a great horror-experience....<br /><br />

Jim Belushi is having a mid life crisis, nothing is going right, when his car goes out on him..he goes into an empty bar where Michael Caine shows him what life wouldve been like if one event in high school had come out differently.. A good premise with some moments..but mostly flat and uninteresting. on a scale of one to ten..3

The sequel is exactly what you will expect it to be. And it is good enough that everyone who would have wanted to watch this should leave it happy.<br /><br />This is not a movie that will win an Academy award. But it does take what made the Jackass TV show and original movie a success, and it turns it up a notch. It is funnier, more brutal, and more disgusting than the original. And I loved every minute of it.<br /><br />The original had a few notorious stunts, and there is at least one stunt that this movie will be remembered for. You will wince, cringe, look away, and laugh very, very hard.<br /><br />In any event, you probably do not need to read this review, or any others, to know if you will like this movie, unless you have never heard of Jackass.

If you have ever read and enjoyed a novel by Tom Robbins you will appreciate this movie as a whole-hearted attempt to translate his outrageously unconventional writing style into a workable piece of big screen art. The actors and the direction of this film are both good. <br /><br />The only trouble with the film, as I can see it, is that Robbins can relate ideas and sentiments with his words that were still beyond Hollywood's capabilities at the time this film was shot.<br /><br />Given both the irreverence of today's movies, as well as the willingness and abilityof today's audiences to delve into the bizarre, I think "Even Cowgirls... would receive a better reception today than it did when it was originally released.

This movie is just plain dumb. Don't bother watching it; believe me, you're better off.<br /><br />Long and short of the plot: a defense attorney represents a man who murdered his son and other children. In defending him, she comes across a wooden doll of Pinnochio. She takes the doll home. Pinnochio is possessed and begins to start killing people.<br /><br />This movie moves very slowly only to have such a weak ending. The plot is very bad and the Dennis Michael Tenney's musical score is pitiful. The story, written by Kevin S. Tenney, is just pointless and evokes NO horror or fear. This is a far cry from his work on Night of the Demons and Witchboard, which are decent outings but nothing to write home about. His directing is OK, but with such a bad story no one could have made this movie any good.<br /><br />In conclusion: 2 out of 10, perhaps the blandest, most boring movie I've seen all year.

Too bad a couple of comments before me don't know the facts of this case. It is based on actual events, a highly publicized disappearance and murder case taking place in the Wilmington, DE/Philadelphia PA region from '96 through 2000. I have to admit I was highly skeptical of how Hollywood would dramatize the actual history and events and was actually quite impressed on how close they stayed to what was constantly reported on local newscasts and Philadelphia Inquirer news stories throughout the time period. Of course I immediately pointed out that the actress (who I really like in Cold Case) who played Fahey looked nothing like her (Anne Marie was actually prettier). I have to admit though that Mark Harmon really nailed the type of personality that was revealed as Capano's and the behavior that Capano exhibited throughout this period. Details of the case were right on...no deviations of dramatic effect...even down to the carpet, gun, furniture, and cooler. In conclusion, I also wanted to add that I have met Tom Carper many times at various functions (a good man, despite being a politician) and I am so glad that he pulled the strings in the Federal realm necessary to solve this heinous crime. Guys like Capano are real and it was great to see him finally put behind bars.

I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.<br /><br />At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.<br /><br />Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.<br /><br />By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.<br /><br />Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.<br /><br />I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.

Xizao is a rare little movie. It is simple and undemanding, and at the same time so rewarding in emotion and joy. The story is simple, and the theme of old and new clashing is wonderfully introduced in the first scenes. This theme is the essence of the movie, but it would have fallen flat if it wasn't for the magnificent characters and the actors portraying them.<br /><br />The aging patriarch, Master Liu, is a relic of China's pre-expansion days. He runs a bath house in an old neighbourhood. Every single scene set in the bath house is a source of jelaousy for us stressed out, unhappy people. Not even hardened cynics can find any flaws in this wonderful setting.<br /><br />Master Liu's mentally handicapped son Er Ming is the second truly powerful character in the movie, coupled with his modern-life brother. The interactions between these three people, and the various visitors to the bath house, are amazingly detailed and heart-felt, with some scenes packing so much emotion it's beyond almost everything seen in movies.<br /><br />With its regime-critical message, this movie was not only censored, but also given unreasonably small coverage. It could be a coincidence, but when a movie of this caliber is virtually impossible to find, even on the internet(!), you can't help getting suspicious.<br /><br />So help free speech and the movie world, buy, rent, copy this wonderful movie, and if you happen to own the DVD, if there even is one, then share share share!

The Last of the Blond Bombshells is an entertaining bit of fluff. Judy Dench plays Elizabeth, a newly widowed woman at loose ends. She has spent most of her life being the dutiful wife and mother but has never been truly happy.<br /><br />Shortly after her husband's funeral, Elizabeth is having her regular lunch date with her stick-in-the-mud children when she spots a street performer. This sparks memories of when she was a member of an all girl swing band in London during World War II. We soon learn that the band was not exactly all girl as the drummer was a man dressing as a woman ala Some Like It Hot.<br /><br />Elizabeth pulls out her sax (which she has been secretly practicing throughout her marriage) and joins forces with the guitar-playing street musician. Elizabeth is far more talented than the guitarist, and the money begins to flow in. She doesn't take any money as she is wealthy and doesn't need it. Her playing is strictly for artistic fulfillment.<br /><br />Elizabeth is seen one day by Patrick (Ian Holm) who was the drummer-in-drag of the band. It seems that Patrick was - and still is - quite the ladies' man, and Elizabeth - being only fifteen at the time - was the only band member who did not experience Patrick's "talents" other than drumming.<br /><br />Elizabeth is inspired by her granddaughter to get the old group together once again to play for the granddaughter's school dance. Thus begins a delightful trip down memory lane combined with aspects of a humorous road trip movie - all topped off with some really good swing and blues.<br /><br />I guess I'm at the age in which I really enjoy older actresses doing their stuff, and this film is a treasure trove as it not only stars Judi Dench, but she is supported by none less than Olympia Dukakis, Leslie Caron, and a host of seasoned British character actresses. This is all topped off by the extraordinary voice of Cleo Laine.<br /><br />Yes, it is fluff, but totally delightful and exceedingly entertaining fluff.

Maybe it's just a personal affection for this screen version of the Mika Waltari novel, or a fondness for things Egyptian (I grew up loving to visit the mummies in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts) but I think Maltin is a tad tough on this rather good film. The production values are great regarding color and cinematography, and it appears some effort went into historical authenticity (much of it from the novel, I'm sure). Purdom is admittedly a bit stiff in the lead role, but one can accept this as part of Sinuhe's character. Victor Mature is, well, Victor Mature. Peter Ustinov is a delight to watch in this type of role, which he always did so well and so wittily. Bella Darvi's performance as Nefer is classically camp, and I find even Michael Wilding's rather dry portrayal of Akenaten to have its own appeal.<br /><br />The historical oddity of Akenaten's monotheism, a brief detour in ancient Egypt's theological history, is interesting, as is Akenaten himself, and well worth reading about; the religious wars portrayed here have a basis in fact.<br /><br />An interesting footnote regarding Darvi, whose birth name was Bayla Wegier: she was a Polish emigre who producer Darryl Zanuck and his wife Violet took under their wing (I believe they may even have adopted her). Her screen name Darvi is formed from Zannuck's and his wife's first names. She continued her acting career in France, but never achieved great success and, after a rather unhappy life, died at her own hand in 1971.<br /><br />Altogether this is an interesting film and enjoyable to watch for the visual values alone. American Movie Classics shows this occasionally in letterbox, which is essential to capturing the scope and sweep of the story.

A low budget may be an excuse for poor acting talent and pathetic looking fake gore. However, it is not an excuse for poor writing. It is a talent to be able to write dialog without making it sound forced and mechanical. The dialog in this movie was on par with most instructional videos shown to fast food staff in training.<br /><br />I also understand that one must make a few exceptions when it comes to acting talent when you only have 20 bucks to spend on it. With that being said, no serious director would have looked at these scenes and said to himself, "that was perfect". I see better character acting on Canadian television.<br /><br />This movie had a paper thin plot, bad acting, poor dialog and holds no intelligent ideas at all. This simply proves to me that some independent films are that way for a reason. If your looking for a quick scare, rent anything else. Even the "Cable Guy" was a scarier film. After watching this film, I think i would have been better off watching a re-run on the X-files.

I first saw this movie in Papua New Guinea in 1967 and have remembered it since, although I have never seen it since that first time.<br /><br />Just how easily good people's lives can be destroyed by the pure evil that existed then and still does is a memory that will haunt me forever.<br /><br />The movie is funny and immensely sad at the same time and the role played by Anthony quinn is superb.<br /><br />This movie should be in all college studies about man's inhumanity to man.

Originally, the Spiders was planned as a four-part serial, and it shows. I dislike serials; they're typically ridiculous, convoluted and banal. This one is no exception. In the first part of the Spiders, 'The Golden Lake,' a rich adventurer thwarts the plans of a gang of criminals--the Spiders--to steal gold from Incas. A silly love triangle ensues, with some Cowboys and Indians action. The sensationalism and exotica of it didn't entertain me.<br /><br />One can legitimately trace themes from this two-part series to Lang's later, far superior work. And, the film-making is better than in other serials I've seen from this time, including 'Les Vampires' (1915). In the Spiders, the camera isn't as static, and this film is fast paced, thankfully. The tinting and lighting are adequate, too. None of that's remarkable, though. It's nearly unseemly, however, in how closely this series resembles Louis Feuillade's serials; the criminal gang dresses and behaves like those in 'Les Vampires'--only the names, and to a lesser extent, the situations have changed.<br /><br />For the further comments on The Spiders series, see the web pages for it.

The 1990's begun to have day time talk shows sprout up left and right. Every network had one, and they all lacked one thing Originality. Ricky Lake was just another show to entertain the obese trailer park mother with a Marlboro cigarette hanging out of her mouth while breast feeding one of her dozens of toothless, illiterate children. The English language and other cornerstones of mankind where ruined by this shows existence. Titltes ranging from Girl you a Pigeon Head and so on. How could anyone want to watch this pure and utter garbage? Has our society really became nothing more than a bunch of hill billy's and dead beat fathers? The people who appear on this show were Trash. The people who watched this show were Trash. Anyone that wishes to see this show re aired or put onto DVD is TRASH. People wonder why Americans are becoming huge piles of lard and too fat to even get jobs, its having shows like this tell them Its OK to be 500lbs overweight, and have 12 year old girls act like prostitutes. Having such trash on TV has ruined morals.

While out divining for water, a young psychic woman named Jessica Burns (Carolyn Kearney) stumbles upon something else altogether. She discovers a chest that has been buried for centuries on her aunt's ranch. Instead of the treasure her aunt is hoping for, the chest contains the head of Gideon Drew, a devil worshiper who was beheaded by Sir Francis Drake. Telepathically controlling the hired-hand who opened the chest, Drew's head goes on a murderous spree in search of the rest of his body – also buried on Jessica's aunt's farm. While Jessica is certain she feels the presence of evil, can she put a stop to Drew's plans and will she be in time to prevent his becoming whole? <br /><br />I thought I was fairly familiar with most of Universal's horror output prior to 1960, but this is one Universal film from the 50s that certainly gets little mention. While The Thing That Couldn't Die isn't what I would call a "good" movie, it does have a few things going for it. First, the film has some interesting ideas and is actually rather ambitious. Director Will Cowan, whether by luck or intention, is able to give the movie some nice atmosphere from time-to-time. And, the special effects involving the head are certainly creepy. But the whole project is undone by the acting. I'm shocked to learn that any of the supposed "actors" in this thing ever appeared in anything else. You would think that this was a "one and done" type of movie for most of those involved. Kearney is the worst offender. She's horrible. Also, The Thing That Couldn't Die may have been a bit too ambitious for its own good. Given the budget and other limitations, there was no way the movie could aspire to its more lofty ideas. Finally, the movie ends rather abruptly. Just as things are starting to get interesting, The End. What's that about?

This TV-series was one of the ones I loved when I was a kid. Even though I see it now through the pink-shaded glasses of nostalgia, I can still tell it was a quality show, very educational but still funny. I have not seen the original French version, only the Swedish. I have no idea how good the dubbing was, it was too long ago to remember.<br /><br />The premise of the show was to show you how the body works. I swear, school still hasn't taught me half of what I know from this show. It also tied in other things, like what happens if you eat unhealthy food and don't exercise, with nice examples within the body. Who wants to have another bar of chocolate when you know miniature virus tanks can invade you? :D The cartoon looked nice, very kids friendly of course, but done with care. Cells, viruses, electric signals in the brain, antibodies and everything else are represented by smiling cartoon figures, looking pretty much how you'd expect what they should look like in the animated body.<br /><br />This, and the series about history(especially the environmentally scary finale) were key parts of my childhood. I'm so happy I found them here.

Thank goodness for the Coen Brothers. Their success has brought them bigger budgets,but hasn't rid them of their creativity. I had planned on seeing another movie, but it was sold out so I went to this one instead. By the time it began, I had forgotten what movie I was there to see. I was surprised in more ways than one. This movie is hilarious, but they don't make any cheap jokes just to get the laughs. The writing is brilliant, and delivered with great skill by George Clooney (after this, nobody can say he's just a pretty face) and the rest of the cast. It can be appreciated on many levels, whether you remember the Odyssey or not. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that was this clever. I've seen others I would describe as beautiful, intriguing, funny and charming, all of which also describe "Oh Brother," but this movie reminded me of older seinfeld episodes where all the subplots came together in the end. You can feel that their journey is building up to something, but you can't tell what. And the Coen brothers do not fail us, the end is certainly not disappointing. It's surprising, and ties up all the loose ends neatly, without wearing the story out.

...for this movie defines a new low in Bollywood and has set the standard against which all c**p must now be compared.<br /><br />First off, the beginning did have elements of style....and if handled well, could have become a cult classic, a-la pulp fiction or a Desi desperado...but the plot (was there one?) begins to meander and at one point completely loses it.<br /><br />Throw in a deranged don with an obsession for English, a call center smart Alec, a femme fa tale who can don a bikini and a Saree with the same aplomb, a levitating, gravity defying hit-man and a cop with a hundred (or was it a thousand) black cat commandos on their trail....good ingredients in competent hands. But this is where I would like to ask the director: Sir, what were you smoking?<br /><br />Im sure this movie would be remembered in the annals of Bollywood film making - for what must never be done - insult the intelligence of the most brain dead of movie goers. <br /><br />Possibly the only redeeming feature in this Desi matrix plus desperado plus grindhouse caper is the music...watch the videos...hear the airplay and you wont be disappointed. Vishal- Shekhar come up with some eminently hummable tunes. <br /><br />How I wish the director had spent the money in creating some more eye candy....<br /><br />As I sign off, I want to really, badly know how does Akshay's bullet wound vanish in a microsecond...what were you editors doing? Tashan, maybe...

Mary Pickford often stated that Tess Skinner was her favorite movie role. Well said! She played the part twice and for this version which she herself produced, she not only had to purchase the rights from Adolph Zukor but even give him credit on the film's main title card. Needless to say her portrayal of this role here is most winning. Indeed, in my opinion, the movie itself rates as one the all-time great experiences of silent cinema.<br /><br />True, director John S. Robertson doesn't move his camera an inch from start to finish, but in Robertson's skillful hands this affectation not only doesn't matter but is probably more effective. A creative artist of the first rank, Robertson is a master of pace, camera angles and montage. He has also drawn brilliantly natural performances from all his players. Jean Hersholt who enacts the heavy is so hideously repulsive, it's hard to believe this is the same man as kindly Dr Christian; while Lloyd Hughes renders one of the best acting jobs of his entire career. True, it's probably not the way Mrs White intended, but it serves the plot admirably, as otherwise we would have difficulty explaining why the dope spent a fortune on defense but made not the slightest attempt to ascertain who actually fired the gun that killed his future brother-in-law! Needless to say, this particular quality of the likable hero is downplayed by Jack Ging in the bowdlerized 1960 version which also totally deletes the author's trenchant attack on smug, middle-class Christianity. Notice how the well-washed priest here moves forward a pace or two in surprise at the interruption, but then makes no attempt whatever to assist our plucky little heroine in the performance of duties that he himself was supposedly ordained to administer. This is a very moving scene indeed because it is so realistically presented.<br /><br />"Tess" also provides an insight into the work of another fine actress, Gloria Hope, whose work was entirely confined to silent cinema. She married Lloyd Hughes in 1921 and retired in 1926 to devote her life completely to her husband and their two children. Lloyd Hughes died in 1958, but she lived until 1976, easily contactable in Pasadena, but I bet no-one had the brains to interview her. Another opportunity lost! <br /><br />To me, Forrest Robinson only made a middling impression as Skinner. I thought he was slightly miscast and a brief glance at his filmography proves this: He usually played priests or judges! But David Torrence as usual was superb.<br /><br />In all, an expensive production with beautiful photography and marvelous production values.

Ingrid Bergman, playing dentist Walter Matthau's faithful receptionist who harbors a little crush on her boss, is absolutely wonderful in this film. She handles the witty repartee in the script with aplomb and steals a terrific scene where she and Goldie Hawn talk in a record booth (Ingrid's monologue is a front, but her face tells you she believes in it with all her heart). Matthau is an odd choice for the leading man (he's too old for Goldie Hawn and too unrefined for Bergman, not to mention too unfocused to be a dentist), but I liked the way he tries hard to please Goldie and stumbles around trying to free himself from a lie. Hawn (who won a Supporting Oscar) is just as fresh and bubbly as she is today. This bedroom farce isn't terribly sophisticated (and faintly reminds one of "Any Wednesday" besides), but it's a welcome relief from the noisy, teen-oriented comedies they turn out today. "Cactus Flower" is a lovely sigh! *** from ****

I love love love this show. Whether you say it's because I'm insane in the brain or not. I think this show is very funny and entertaining although sometimes Bam's uncle Vito scares me.. so all in all I give this show a perfect review. And so I really think if you're into the "omg.. what an idiot " kind of humor, this show is for you. It's really funny to see the look on the prank peoples faces and there are many musical guests who come to Bam's house. Buy this cause it rocks! You should buy it. yes. And Bam's brother is in the band CKY and they are really good and sometimes come on the show.<br /><br />Bottom line is.. please watch the show.

I didn't expect much when I first saw the DVD cover. I mean, Pierce Brosnan as Grey Owl??<br /><br />Ah...but then the story got underway, unfolded in a beautifully photographed and paced film. I was surprised and delighted at this (basically) true story. Made me want to read more about this fascinating character, which means, the director fulfilled his purpose, and the film was a success!

...and in this series, I've been reduced to an annoying jock with a gay hairstyle. Remember my friend Marco, who got all the good lines in the books? Well, in this series his one-liners put Mr. Freeze to shame. Remember our uber-evil nemesis Visser Three? He's a bald guy with inane catchphrases. Remember Rachel, "Xena, the Warrior Princess", and Cassie, my sensitive and caring love interest? They've been turned into mindless bimbos by the 10 (!) writers who decided the original characters weren't cool enough for TV. Remember the awesome extra-terrestial Ax, who was cool, intelligent, and really, really liked cinnamon buns? In this series he's the Token Alien with an extremely annoying voice. Remember the witty banter our team had in the books? In this series our dialogue is so dreary and stupid it's obvious the writers were pandering to the lowest common denominator.<br /><br />So forget everything you thought you knew about the Animorphs! It was Cassie who became allergic to morphing, not Rachel, thought-speak is *supposed* to echo, and Visser Three and Ax, rarely, if ever, appeared as Andalites (no, it has nothing to do with the budget!). <br /><br />I'm not crazy. And I'm not lying. The jerks are all around us. And if you're unlucky, one of them might adapt one of your favourite books, or series, or graphic novels, into a really awful TV show. You've been warned.<br /><br />"Finally... television worth watching." ~ (the very bald) Visser Three<br /><br />(r#91)

Another classic study of the effects of wealth on a southern family is masterfully depicted in Written on the Wind.<br /><br />Kyle Hadley has it all. Wealth, a plane, you name it. Kyle's best friend, Mitch, has always gotten him out of difficulty. Mitch finished college, Kyle got thrown out. Mitch is not from a wealthy home. Kyle's family, with Hadley Oil, controls most of everything in the town.<br /><br />While in N.Y., Kyle meets the girl of his dreams, nicely played by Lauren Bacall. After a whirlwind romance, he marries her and brings her home. There she meets her father-in-law who warns her how difficult Kyle can be. Kyle sleeps with a gun under his pillow. The Bacall character meets Kyle's sister, Mary Lee, a tramp if ever there were, played to the fullest by Dorothy Malone, who was voted best supporting actress.<br /><br />Rock Hudson plays Mitch, the faithful friend.<br /><br />A year of wedded bliss for Kyle and his bride ends when Kyle is told by the doctor that he can't have children. It is when his wife reveals to him that she is indeed pregnant, Kyle, thinking that the child is Mitch's, goes on a drunken frenzy and is accidentally shot dead in a memorable scene.<br /><br />Mary Lee, who has always loved Mitch, tries but is unsuccessful in blaming Mitch for Kyle's death. In a memorable courtroom scene, Malone pulled out all the stops in finally admitting that Kyle's death was an unfortunate accident. Her Oscar was well deserved.<br /><br />Surprisingly, Robert Stack, brilliant as Kyle Hadley, was nominated for best supporting actor and lost in an upset victory by Anthony Quinn, as Paul Gauguin, in Lust for Life.<br /><br />Douglas Sirk was the master of soap opera films of the 1950s. Written on the Wind is no exception. ***1/2.

<br /><br />I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.<br /><br />My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.<br /><br />And of course, there was the gore.<br /><br />The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.<br /><br />The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.<br /><br />All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.<br /><br />Loved it. Go see it!

Bobcat Goldthwait should be commended for attempting to do something different with this surprisingly heartfelt film, a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of being honest about everything. Melinda Hamilton stars as Amy, a girl who has had oral sex with a canine in the past on a lark. She struggles with telling her fiancé, John. Of course the truth does rear it's shaggy ugly head. The film deals with the fallout of said escapade. The movie is well-acted by all, save for perhaps Jack Plotnick as Dougie, who never really felt like he mashed well with the picture. And the film while solid enough seems to miss it's mark a few times. Every single person in the film struggles with massive hypocrisy and all our a tad hard to relate to. Bobcat should be commended for doing something different, as I said before, but different does not always equal good and this pales ever so slightly not to Goldthwaits own directorial debut, the criminally misunderstood "Shakes the Clown"<br /><br />My Grade: C-

My parents used to rent a lot of horror movies when I was a child. We loved watching them even when they were bad they made for some enjoyment. This was one such movie, kind of hard to review as I have only seen it the one time as a child, but it is not anything I want to track down again so I can do a more in-depth review. The story has some old horror actor legend dying. I seem to remember he acted a bit like an over the top Vincent Price, without being likable and classy. He commits murders and dies, but what is this? Is the movie over already? No, as some kids for some reason snag the body and are prepared for a fun night of being killed by the ham from beyond the grave. I remember the murders were nothing all that special after the first couple and I remember this movie was rather disappointing. Seemed to have a good premise, but it just failed to deliver the goods as more cool kills were needed and that super horror actor needed to add a bit to his repertoire.

If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.<br /><br />Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.<br /><br />If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.<br /><br />I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.

Filmfour are going to have to do a lot better than this little snot of a film if they're going to get the right sort of reputation for themselves.<br /><br />This film is set in Glasgow (although only a couple of secondary characters have anything approaching a Scottish accent). The premise, about people who's lives are going nowhere, who all meet up in the same cafe in the early hours of the morning as they have night jobs, COULD have made for a really funny, insightful, quirky, cultish film. Instead we have a group of self-obsessed saddos and a plot which has been so done to bits I'm suprised it hasn't been banned. X and Y are friends. X is sleeping with Z. Y sleeps with Z as well. Oh you figure it out.<br /><br />A total waste of time. Painful dialogue - it sounded like something that a group of 16 year olds would have written for a GCSE drama project. The female character was completely superfluous - just written in as a token female in the hope that women would be cajoled into seeing it.<br /><br />If you're the sort of thicko lad who laughs at beer adverts and can usually be found wandering round in packs shouting on Saturday nights in nondescript town centres then you will love this film and find it "a right laff". Everyone else, run, don't walk away from this sorry little misfit.<br /><br />And one question, when the group left the "boring" seaside town (Saltcoats incidentally although they changed the name on the film), to go back to Glasgow, WHY did they do it via the Forton motorway services at LANCASTER which is in England?

The Twins Effect - Chinese Action/Comedy - (Charlene Choi, Gillian Chung)<br /><br />This vampire action comedy is one of my favorites for the very fact that I was thoroughly entertained throughout the entire movie. First of all, the characters are memorable, contributing a myriad of classic scenes. Charlene and Gillian are naturally cute, charismatic, and humorous. This movie was my first exposure to them, and all I wanted to do was reach through my television screen and give them a REALLY BIG HUG. The remaining cast did well in their supporting roles, including Jackie Chan, Karen Mok, "The Duke", Josie Ho, Edison Chen, Anthony Wong, and the vampire bad guys (one of which looks eerily familiar to Will Ferrell). Even the abominably horrible Ekin Cheng was good in this one. Good characters are important, of course, because they avoid the feeling of boredom by keeping things interesting between action sequences.<br /><br />And speaking of action, this film has plenty of it. More importantly, there is an emphasis of quality in the fight choreography. One aspect that helped in this regard is the featured weapon of the protagonists – a sword with a retractable spear-ended rope. This weapon, in and of itself, opened up a variety of moves that would have been otherwise impossible. Josie Ho and Gillian Chung, in particular, perform some wicked aerial maneuvers using these devices. <br /><br />In addition, the swordplay is superb, and is highlighted by two great sword fights – one taking place during the opening train station sequence and the other occurring in the church finale. In fact, the blade-wielding maneuvers showcased in this film put some other highly overrated fan favorites to great shame, and I truly feel sorry for those who would cite the horribly choreographed garbage seen in Ashes of Time, Storm Riders, or A Man Called Hero with the well-planned, precisely executed sequences seen in The Twins Effect. It's not even close. <br /><br />I can't understand why this film gets so much criticism. I'm sure die-hard apologists for the Hong Kong "Golden Age" will hate this because it doesn't fit into their narrow-minded view of what Hong Kong action should be. We should learn from the downfall of John Woo - a one trick pony who never learned how to re-invent himself. We don't need another clone. We need something different. The Twins Effect is one good example.<br /><br />This film was so good that it actually set me up for being disappointed at other Chinese movies with the same actors and actresses. This especially applies to Ekin Cheng, whose other films almost always suck – and yes, this includes the obscenely overrated and exploitative wuxia crap mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even The Twins have never been able to match the value of this movie when both were lead actresses in a film, although they have managed to hit some good films when either one or the other takes the leading role (e.g., Beyond Our Ken, Good Times Bed Times, House of Fury) or when one or both are in supporting roles (e.g., Colour of the Truth, New Police Story, Just One Look). The Twins Effect 2 should have been a direct sequel, instead of a family fantasy. I am still yearning to see Charlene and Gillian team up and kick some butt in another movie, but the fact remains that The Twins Effect hits on all cylinders, optimizing their charisma while avoiding a descent into annoyance (as in Protégé de la Rose Noire).<br /><br />All in all, this film has everything one needs to be entertained. And may I remind the reader that it is precisely this – ENTERTAINMENT – that judges the greatness of a movie, more so than artsy dramatic elements or meaningless awards from established academies of critics who usually have no idea what they are talking about.<br /><br />In the end, the Twins Effect is a CLASSIC not to be missed.<br /><br />Rating = 5/5 stars <br /><br />P.S. – The Hollywood execs decided to slaughter this film when it was released in the U.S. by renaming it The Vampire Effect and cutting out 20 minutes of footage, which includes parts of the action scenes. However, the final fight of the U.S. version does have a better soundtrack than the original version. Therefore, I purchased both versions, which allows me to first watch the original until about the 1:20 mark, and then swap discs to watch the final fight on the U.S. version.

I found this movie hilarious. The spoofs on other popular movies of that time were some of the funniest I have seen in this sort of movie. Give it a try. If you saw the movies that this movie is spoofing, and you get the humor, you should enjoy the movie.<br /><br />I (and the others who watched the movie with me) felt the funniest part in the movie (this is not a spoiler because I will NOT tell you what actually happens) was a scene with the "flashy thingy" from MIB. When they first discover the device and do not know what it is does... and then again later in the movie... you'll understand when you get there.<br /><br />My only complaint about the movie is that I have never been able to find it in DVD so that I could buy a copy.

This movie is all about subtlety and the difficulty of navigating the ever-shifting limits of mores, race relations and desire. Granted, it is not a movie for everyone. There are no car chases, no buildings exploding, no murders. The drama lies in the tension suggested by glances, minimal gestures, spatial boundaries, lighting and things left -- sometimes very ostensibly -- unsaid. It's about identity, memory, community, belonging. The different parts of the movie work together to reinforce the leitmotifs of self and other, identity, desire, limits and loss. It will reward the attentive and sensitive viewer. It will displease those whose palates require explosive, massive, spicy action. It is a beautifully filmed human story. That is all.

"Feast of All Saints?" Where...? When...?<br /><br />Was the Feast of All Saints storyline and theme edited out? <br /><br />What a waste of a wonderful title! There is never anything in the story that has the remotest connection to the "Feast of All Saints." Nor is there anything in the story about "All Souls Day" which the term is referencing. Why bother to use this title if you never intend to including any kind of storyline or theme about "All Souls Day" or the "Feast of All Saints"? <br /><br />Embarrassly Bad Script & Amateur Writing <br /><br />How did they attract such great talent to this clunker? The writing is so amateur--characters that have known each other all their life go into big long speeches about their life history for the sake of the audience. Not at all the way people talk to each other. <br /><br />What was the Director Thinking?<br /><br />The directing is equally bad! The forced and overly deliberate style feels amateurish. In one scene, a character is yelling "Take your hands off of me" and NO ONE is touching him! The most badly directed scene however, is the incredibly over-the-top battle scene at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />Excessive Gore in a Very Fake, Silly Battle Scene<br /><br />There are so many dead people in the most fake battle scene. It looks like a Saturday Night Live skit!! You can see extras waiting for their cues to walk across camera. Everyone plays their death scene like 4th grade boys--exaggerating every little gasp and twitch. The blood on battle victims is so excessive and carelessly applied it looks like someone used a ketchup dispenser and just squirted straight lines of red on the costumes.<br /><br />This whole battle scene comes off as the spoof of a really cheesy war movie. You almost expect someone like Will Ferrell and Mike Myers to ride up on a horse and deliver the punchline.<br /><br />Who in Real Life Would Ever Behave this Way?! <br /><br />The most ridiculous bit of writing, directing and casting is actually the focus of the scene: <br /><br />A little girl is standing under the dead body of her hanging father--who is terribly mutilated, and literally dripping blood form his gaping wounds. Even a totally idiot would know he is dead! Yet she is--very monotonously--repeating over and over "Daddy, daddy..." while looking at someone off-screen. She delivered it with about as much believability and passion as you could expect from an non-actor kid that had been repeating the line for the cameras all day.<br /><br />Even if the poor kid had any acting skills, the scene is completely unbelievable. The little girl wouldn't even BE in the middle of the battlefield after hours of carnage--surrounded by hundreds of dead bodies, while she calmly stands there!! Natural instincts would had the kid screaming and terrified, running AWAY from the bloody carnage! <br /><br />Are we Suppose to be Horrified or Laugh...?!<br /><br />One particularly goofy detail, that gives the scene an SNL satire tone, is the father hanging, with a huge hook through his mouth and cheek. He looks like a fish on a hook! The unintentionally funny details, make the whole scene come across as fake and silly.<br /><br />In Fantasy La-La-Land, Mothers and Daughters are the Same Age! <br /><br />Another funny detail, is that you see a central character--the little girl's mother--at the end of the scene and in the next scene, that occurs 20+ years later, she looks exactly the same! She is still young and beautiful, and now the same age as her daughter! <br /><br />I almost turned the movie off right there because the direction and writing were obviously awful--but I tried to stick it out because I wanted to see the Louisiana settings and I like all the actors. I don't know what these fine actors were thinking when they accepted these roles!<br /><br />Who was the Targeted Audience?<br /><br />The excessive amount of blood and badly acted violence in the opening scene are weirdly out of place with the soap opera storytelling tone that follows. It is also a strange way to start a movie that, for the rest of the time, seems targeted to romance novel reading females. Weird inconsistency in tone!

I first encountered Arthur Penn's "Four Friends" late one night on HBO. Having never heard of it, I expected very little, but watched because I was interested in seeing what a creation by a teaming of Penn and screenwriter Steve Tesich would be like. For the next two hours or so, I sat mesmerized, watching this incredible teaming of talent and the story they wove. A semi-autobiographical tale of a young immigrant to America growing up amidst the turbulence of the 1960s, "Four Friends" follows the story of Danilo, an eastern European immigrant (the brilliant Craig Wasson), from his arrival in the United States through a decade that changed the American landscape. Accompanying Danilo on his journey are his friends Georgia (the radiant Jodi Thelan, in a role that sadly, she has never had the opportunity to equal), Tom (Jim Metzler) and David (Michael Huddleston). "Four Friends" covers way too much territory for me to attempt to explain it here, but if you haven't seen this film, I urge you to find a copy (it's just been released on DVD) and watch it. You won't be disappointed. Tesich's script is wonderfully poignant — at times funny, at times incredibly sad, but always fascinating and honest. Penn directs with a sure hand, and an obvious love for the period and the people whose lives we're following. The cast is uniformly superb. This film should have made a major star out of Wasson who is truly one of this country's most wasted talents. Jodi Thelan, not your standard brainless Hollywood sexpot, heats up the screen in a performance that makes the audience fall in love with her character as easily as the characters in the film. Metzler and Huddleston subtle performances could easily be overlooked in the shadow of their co-stars, but they are excellent and help anchor the film. Also superb are Miklos Simon and Elizabeth Lawrence as Danilo's parents, as well as Reed Birney and Lois Smith. I have not been without a copy of "Four Friends" since the day after I first saw it on HBO those many years ago. It has been and remains one of my all-time favorite films for more than 20 years now. I can't recommend it enough and feel, if you give it a chance, you'll feel the same way.

This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.

What a master piece. To take the cold war conflict and transport it to the future. This film is satire of the highest order. In my humble opinion it outranks Dr. Strangelove.<br /><br />The clever naming of the two superpowers, as the Confederation and the Market. Cons being commies and Market, The west! outstanding. The Clever use of gen Joxs, was ahead of its time. only are we really seeing the dangers of genetic engineering. Robot joxs tackled the issue head on in 1989.<br /><br />The message of this film is about the comradeship of the humble man and how it can overcome the wishes of government. This movies screams DON'T DO IT YOU FOOLS YOU'LL KILL US ALL.<br /><br />EXCELLENT 10/10

"Moonstruck" is a movie that I liked the first time I watched it. I really liked it the second time. I loved it the third time. Now it is one of my all time favorites.<br /><br />The humor is subtle but really good. The film offers a lot of warmth humor. the story takes place in a old school Italian neighborhood in NYC. Cher's search for love is enjoyable to watch. This film is, by far, the best job Nicholas Cage has done on film. The old man character is fantastic. He lights up the screen without saying a word. The scene with his dogs howling at the moon was fantastic. But, perhaps the best character is the one played by Olympia Dukakis.<br /><br />The film's climax is a scene where the main characters have it out over a breakfast of oatmeal in the family kitchen. Exceptional direction and wrap up.

Whenever I make up a list of the absolute worst movies I've ever seen, this movie is always on it. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It took an act of will to sit through the whole thing, and I would sooner spill my own blood than have to sit through it again.<br /><br />What's wrong with it? Let me tell you the story of my trip to go see it in the theater.<br /><br />I went to a midnight show, on a Saturday night. I the only ones in the theater were myself, and a bunch of loud, boisterous, rather unruly teenagers, sitting somewhere behind me. They were obviously out having a good time on a Saturday night, and had come to this "comedy" for some laughs. Before the movie starts, during the previews, they were laughing and joking and making loud comments having a grand old time. It was borderline annoying; had they continued their unbridled enthusiasm into the actual movie, I might've said something, but I was feeling tolerant and empathetic of their spirited fun, so I let it go. And they did settle down once the movie started.<br /><br />Why am I telling you all this? Because you can judge this alleged "comedy" by the effect it had not just on myself, but on this rowdy bunch.<br /><br />During the entire run of the film, not one person in the theater laughed. Not once. Not myself, not the boisterous kids. Absolute silence, aside from the soundtrack. And when the film was over and the lights came on, we all, all of us, slowly filed out of the theater in slow, somber, absolute silence. It could've been a funeral.<br /><br />This was the effect that this "comedy" produced. Not laughter, not enjoyment, but absolute DEPRESSION. It was a depressing, depressing movie, and not the tiniest bit funny. Preachy, self-indulgent, depressing, but not funny.<br /><br />I consider Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" to be on the short list for Funniest Movie Ever. It still absolutely blows my mind that the same gentleman could be responsible for quite probably the Least Funny Movie Ever.<br /><br />In short: if you're feeling too happy, give this movie a whirl; otherwise, don't say I didn't warn you.

This movie really rocks! Jeff Wincott is terrific in the film! His fighting incredible! He is such a fast martial artist! Brigitte Nielsen & Matthias Hues was very good! Mission of Justice is an action packed movie that is never boring! If you like fighting movies with incredible non stop action then check out Mission of Justice today!

Strangely erotic schlock Gothic horror that will be loved by Hammer House of Horror fans the world over. Appears to be an interesting take on "Beauty and the Beast". It is definitely worth a look and surprisingly well acted when taking into consideration the genre and era.<br /><br />Corsets, castles, rutting horses, rampaging faux fur monsters in the woods, proof that no-one had a Brazilian in the 70's, and more bodily fluids than you can shake a stick at, what more could you possibly want?!<br /><br />It certainly brightened my Sunday afternoon!

I laughed out loud several times during this film though give it a cursory glance and you would think it was something else altogether. I adore the pace and the way it slowly burns into you as you are presented these gobsmackingly beautiful tableaux. Andersson gives us something else here. Shows us something I had not seen since his last film. He is compositionally exceptional and via his method of fixing the camera and allowing action to take place before us, he opens the door on humanity and we peer into a place that reflects our own lives, our little lives. It is powerful stuff. It is the simplicity with which he allows the events to take place that creates the opposite feeling of complexity. Everything in front of the camera is anything but simple. Andersson's attention to detail is extraordinary. I believe most scenes, if not all, are sets built from scratch according to his designs. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. For me it took me to a place and I came out of it having witnessed a world frayed and beautiful, starched and pained, barren and splendid. At once alien and familiar. This film is brilliant and life affirming. I know because I came out smiling feeling wonderful. It has taken him seven years to make this. If he only made this one film he would still be up there with the greats.

With a cast of stalwart British character actors and pleasing photography of 1950s Britain, I had hoped and expected to be more entertained by this film. Unfortunately I found myself glued to it for the wrong reasons - I couldn't quite believe how awful it was. I must have watched thousands of old films and am always ready to make allowances for them being products of their time, but this was really hard going.<br /><br />As others have noted, a major problem is that it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: a gentle romantic comedy, a slapstick comedy or a musical. I was a bit gobsmacked when Jeannie Carson suddenly broke into song about 15 minutes in! It's not believable on any level, either the storyline itself or the fact that Daisy never appears to have an ounce of menace in her at any time. Other aspects which defied credibility included the casting of suave Donald Sinden as a songwriter (a songwriter for God's sake!), the fact he has Diana Dors for a fiancée and doesn't appear to have the slightest interest in her (I mean, Diana Dors! Come on!) and a ludicrous scene in a song publisher's office. The whole thing's silly in the worst possible way.<br /><br />If I had to pick a favourite scene it would be the one at the very beginning with that wonderful actor Wilfred Lawson - after that everything went downhill in a big way.

Everybody loves to see a really bad movie sometime. You watch it, take a good laughs and forget it in the next half hour. But this is not one of those. It's the worst thing that will appear in front of your eyes for a while.<br /><br />I would like to see someone to take responsibility for Dante - he's really the most stupid villain you can think of: a guy in leather pants that speaks with a voice over and has a victory laugh like a 50's Dracula. How can someone came up with this guy?? And the hero..."The Dragon" or whatever...my cereals box has better acting skills than him (maybe than all of them), it's unbelievable. But the worst are the fighting scenes where you would think there could be something in it. They're so lame, it's beyond any kind of description. There's no shame, i just can't believe how this movie was allowed by any studio. But i'm just thrilled it was. Watching this is a self-mutilating pleasure. See this only if you're in a movie quest for pain, and in that case, this one is a sure winner.

This is yet another tell-it-as-it-is Madhur Bhandarkar film. I am not sure why he has this obsession to show Child moles***ion and g*y concepts to the Indian filmy audience, but I find some of those scenes really disgusting! What's new? It is a nice piece put together by Bhandarkar, where he shows the story of an entertainment reporter played by leading lady in the famous film, Mr & Mrs Iyer. What makes this movie different is, that it also covers the stories of people that this reporter interacts with or is friends with, such as her roomies, her colleagues, film stars, models, rich people and others featured in the Entertainment Page#3 in her newspaper.<br /><br />Noticeable: It is another good performance from Mrs Iyer. She is likely to be noticed for this role. She does selective roles but shines in them. She is noticeably de-glamorized and less beautiful in this film. But then, entertainment reporters are not supposed to outshine the people they cover, right? Verdict: Madhur has come up with another good movie, that brings social issues to the limelight very nicely. However, this movie loses focus and one is not sure what the director is trying to convey.<br /><br />Is he trying to show us the glitz and glamor of the rich people? or is he trying to show us the life of an entertainment reporter and contrasting that with the life of the REAL crime reporter? Is he trying to tell us how the government and rich folks rule the press? or is he trying to illustrate the issues with child abuse and g*y folk. The other concepts brought forth include the unwritten rule that young women have to sleep with directors or co-stars, if they wish to enter Bollywood.<br /><br />In addition, he talks about how flight assistants get sick and tired of their jobs after a while and resort to extreme measures by marrying much elder people, etc. He also talks about unhappy women and spoilt kids in rich families.<br /><br />This was all okay for me.. but might be too complex for an average movie-goer, who just wants to relieve some stress from day to day work

Given the acting roles he played in the 1940s (Casper Gutman, Signior Ferrari, Mr. Peters, Jerome K. Arbutny, Ex-Superintendent Grodman, Count Fosco, Titus Semple) it surprises many of his fans to learn that originally Sidney Greenstreet made a name for himself in comedies in the West End and Broadway. He was usually such a total villain, or serious actor to the public that his comic talents were ignored. In fact he actually did make four comedy appearances (one a spoof of his villainous portrayals with his villainy partner Peter Lorre in a cameo appearance). His best total film appearance in a comedy was probably that of magazine publisher Alexander Yardley in "Christmas In Connecticut" (although his autocratic, half-mad soap tycoon in "The Hucksters" is a close second). Despite some problems with the screenplay, it is a good film, and usually revived in the Christmas season.<br /><br />Elizabeth Lane (Barbara Stanwyck) writes a column in "American Housekeeping" magazine for Yardley, where she gives household tips and cooking recipes. She is the 1945 version of Martha Steward, except that Ms Steward is a cook and house-owner, and can vouch for trying out and testing what she advocates. Stanwyck can't. Her cooking recipes are those of her friend Felix (S.Z. Sakall), a gourmet chef and restaurateur. The house she describes as her home (a model farmhouse in Connecticut) belongs to her unofficial boyfriend, architect John Sloan (Reginald Gardiner). Gardiner really would not mind marrying Stanwyck, but she is not fully ready to consider a final commitment to him.<br /><br />As the film begins, an American is shipwrecked by the Nazis. This is Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), a sailor. He spends two weeks in a raft before being rescued. Sensing publicity value, Greenstreet decides to grant Morgan's wish to have a genuine old fashioned Christmas in Connecticut. He basically tells Stanwyck that she will entertain Morgan and himself at her farm for the holidays. Stanwyck is unable to explain that the columns image of herself (complete with her ability to flip flap-jacks, and raise a baby she supposedly had with her husband) is a lie - if she does she will be fired, as will her immediate boss Dudley Beecham (Robert Shayne). In a moment of depression she accepts Gardiner's proposal of marriage, and then Gardiner finds his Connecticut home is dragooned into becoming the "actual" home of Stanwyck and himself and "their baby".<br /><br />Of course, aside from putting off Greenstreet's meddling curiosity, Stanwyck and Morgan find that they are falling in love (much to the annoyance of Gardiner - he does actually expect that Stanwyck will still marry him). Complication following complication occurs, as lies piles on lies, and as neighbor's babies succeeds neighbor's babies, before Greenstreet begins to wonder if he is missing something. But it is a comedy, so everything works out well. Even Greenstreet, at the conclusion, is amused by the entire madness - his celebrated hearty chortle mirroring that of Santa Clause for a change. This is not a classic comedy, certainly not a great one, but amusing enough for the season to be worth watching in December.

I can't believe this movie has an average rating of 7.0! It is a fiendishly bad movie, and I saw it when it was fairly new, and I was in the age group that is supposed to like it!

It's proof that movie makers and their financiers treating their audience with contempt isn't a new phenomena as it was done as early as the 1940s and HOUSE OF Dracula is a great example . You'd think having a film with Dracula , the wolf man and Frankenstein's monster the producer would dictate to the screenwriter to have all three appear in a scene . They had a chance with HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN then when they had a second bite of the cherry they blew it again with HOUSE OF Dracula . To lose one chance is a misfortune , to lose two smacks of cynical money making <br /><br />It's obvious the producers are beyond caring . Larry Talbot turns up again even though he was shown to die in the previous film which sums up the cynicism of the franchise . It also shows what a poor screenplay it is and we're mistreated to some awful plot turns like Talbot's condition being cured by a special type of plant which will soften his skull . I'm thinking screenwriter Edward T Lowe might have had his skull softened if this is the type of stuff he comes up with <br /><br />Director Erie C Kenton can't improve on the script and throws in a few spanners of his own . For example Talbot is startled to see Dr Edelmann snatch a lift on a cart but nonchalantly watches Edelmann climb a wall and jump in to the château courtyard . One can't help thinking Talbot's reaction shots were mistakenly switched round at the editing stage <br /><br />Lon Chaney Jnr is famous for his roles in horror movies but didn't have much of a career outside them . Perhaps that's down to the fact he's not a good actor and here he commits the worst type of acting - being very wooden . It's not entirely his fault though because all the characters spout rather awful dialogue and are all rather wooden due in part to Kenton's lackluster directing <br /><br />HOUSE OF Dracula feels a million miles away from James Whale 1931 film and its sequel from 1935 and would have been a very sad note to end on . But ironically Universal decided to make one more movie to wrap up their franchise with a horror comedy starring Abbot and Costello

The Plot: A group of young people with ridiculous names (Hutch, Swink, Phineaus, and October)are brought together by the death of their equally ridiculously named friend Loomis. After the funeral, they decide to divide up their late friend's belongings. Among them is a video game called Stay Alive. The group decides there's no better way to show their grief than to all partake in a little virtual bloodshed. But the more they play, the more they realize the connection between the game and the death of poor ol' Loomis.<br /><br />The Production: This film is just another entry into the latest Hollywood craze of low-budget PG-13 horror aimed at cashing in on the junior high school crowd. The direction is sloppy to say the least with quick, music video style cuts that make the action difficult to follow. The dialog is so bad that it actually kills brain cells. The plot itself is so full of holes that we never even learn where the game came from or why those who play it die.<br /><br />The idea behind this film, although not entirely original, had some promise. But the poor execution on both sides of the camera make this one big dud.<br /><br />If you've ever got a craving for a "killing someone in a video game makes them dead in real life" horror film take my advice and skip Stay Alive for the superior Brainscan.

What did the director think? Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty. That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN. Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won? While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head. Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.

A truly, truly dire Canadian-German co-production, the ever-wonderful Rosanna Arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term "problem child" - a few uears prior to the "action" the child murdered her father, and mum took the fall for the offspring. Now she's moved up to the Northwest US to start over, but her child still has a problem in that she's devoted to her mother. So devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond.<br /><br />Unfortunately Mandy Schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people - she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie, though the incoherent script, useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini-clad bod) don't help any; we're supposed to find her sexy and scary, but she fails on both counts. Almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that Arquette and Schaeffer don't really convince as mother and daughter), all condolences to Miss Arquette and Jurgen Prochnow, both of whom are worthy of far more than this, and both of whom (particularly Rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago.<br /><br />One of the production companies is called Quality International Films - not since the three-hour "Love, Lies And Murder" (from Two Short Productions) has there been such a "You must be joking" credit.

This 1955 Producers' Showcase version of the musical Peter Pan with Mary Martin has the benefit of showcasing most of the original Broadway cast, including Kathleen Nolan as Wendy, who was more natural an actress than the girl they hired for the 1960 color televised play. It's a shame that most people won't sit through anything black and white anymore because in many respects this earlier production - which doesn't even show up in the IMDb listings when you put "Peter Pan" into the search engine! - is superior to the cutesier color version most people have watched. I obtained the original on disc and then did work on it to make it look and sound better digitally. Now when I put the 1960 color version on it looks garish in comparison. I suspect Mary Martin herself no doubt preferred this original 1955 b/w Producers' Showcase televised version.<br /><br />As an added plus the disc I got also showed the original commercials and opening promo. How far away the 1950's seem now - such an innocent time compared to today. I miss it.

Well, on it's credit side (if it can be said to have one), Timothy Hines DID manage to capture the original setting of H.G. Wells' outstanding novella. But other than that - well, to call a spade a spade - it sucks bigtime. What the Master Ed Wood could have done with the alleged $20 million dollar budget! Timothy Hines really does make Mr. Wood, who was a flawed genius anyway, look like the best filmmaker of all time. The special effects (I guess you'd call them that) are not even up to computer game standards. The acting is, well, perhaps about dinner theater comparable, and the accents are atrocious. At the risk of sounding offensive, a lot of the acting from the principal male characters is (especially Poor Ogilvy), well, ahem, . . . GAY! Poor Ogilvy minces and flounces about the bogus English countryside, waving his asbestos white handkerchief about as if it were heat resistant armor. Hey, the Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" had neat white body armor too, and it didn't work either, they still got blasted. Even when Ogilvy and Company get fried by the Martians' 'Heat Ray'(?), they flounce and mince in some weird kind of dance, even when they're theoretically DEAD and reduced to skeletons, which persist in unseemly dancing and writhing. Maybe Timothy Hines rented the skeletons from Ray Harryhausen, being left over from "Jason And The Argonauts". Or was it "Josie And The Pussycats"? I dunno. The soldiers, presumably because they're 'military', all seem to just rather unconvincingly explode, like the soldier on crutches and his unfortunate comrades carrying the stretcher just beyond him. Wow! I loved it! But the 'soldiers' all looked like they were either fascist troops from the Spanish Civil War, or Boer Commandos (which would be more or less correct for the period. Perhaps that was some bit of shrewd subtlety on the part of that wicked genius Hines?). Oddly enough, the character of the Curate looks exactly like he's drawn in the original illustrations by Warwick Goble, and he also turns in the most convincing job of acting. Oh, yeah. Musn't forget the THUNDER CHILD. In the book, the warship is described as an ironclad torpedo-ram. It was MEANT to RAM enemy ships. Yet, it's bow was crumpled after ramming the Tinker-Toy constructed Martian War Machines, with a tiny jagged hole in the forepeak, and she sank. An ironclad warship like THUNDERCHILD could've rammed the TITANIC and survived, but I guess the Royal Navy was bound by the same lowest-bidder constraints as our own Military. The costumes are all wrong, especially the British Army and Police uniforms, cobbled together mostly from USMC Alphas. And Timbo, in an obvious homage to Western Films Of Yore, has obviously set his movie in Wild Western England, because all his riders are using western saddles. The accents being used by just about everyone appear to be a mixture of some kind of Scottish regional accent used by Clan Macabre, and magically delicious Irish accents from County Malarky. On the credit side, and contrary to what one reviewer wrote, the only genuine, authentic feature of this Thing is the artillery. The guns are not from the Civil War, but appear to my eye and research as bona-fide British nine or 12 pounder Rifled Breach Loaders, perfectly authentic to the period. So was the ammunition shown being used. But the Artilleryman, who is a driver in the Horse Artillery, was not shown correctly driving his limber. You don't sit on the frigging limber box and drive a gun team, you ride the nearside wheel horses. The Opening, using what I believe is authentic period film footage, is okay, and the score's not bad. However, to the best of my knowledge Weybridge has never had an underground, and it certainly didn't in 1898.<br /><br />But growing up reading this novel, I am very disappointed. Even more disappointed then I was at Spielberg's zillion dollar, special effects laden version. Maybe his version would have profited by swapping Anthony Piana for Tom Cruise, and vice versa. I have a lot more to say, but I'll let it go at this for now: I wish somebody would make a GOOD version of "War Of The Worlds" that's faithful to the original. Timmy's vision is fine for a high school film class, or maybe I should say pretentiously stupid for a college-level film student, and about as bad, which is about the best I can say for this thing, but that's about it. Oh, yeah. Just where DID the budget go? And what happened to Michael Caine? I'd like to hear HIS comments! I have a sneaking suspicion that Timbo "Orson Wood" Hines' breathtaking, bound-breaking cinema masterpiece just might be the risk-taking director's ticket to cult stardom, because, I must confess a guilty pleasure at watching this movie, which I didn't pay for anyway but was thoughtfully sent to me by a friend who burned a DVD copy for me, with no malicious intent that I've been able to determine. I must add here that I thought Blackmoon's dubbed and abridged version was not only a vast improvement, but an absolute, hysterically funny (in a good way) treat to watch. I find it hard to watch Master Timbo's version after Blackmoon. Keep it up, Tim! Make your own version of "DUNE", now. It just awaits the hand of a master like you! And all you headupyourass snobs who hated Cloverfield? FORGET IT. It CANNOT BEAT TIMBO HINES ARTISTRY FOR SHEER HILARIOUS AWFULNESS! HEY GET A LIFE!TIMBO IS WORSE THAN THE MASTER ED WOOD! I KID YOU NOT!

OK, so obviously ppl thought this was a good movie in 1955.<br /><br />I pity the fools who still think so... Its absolute rubbish.<br /><br />The story is just ... ridiculous. The characters are absurd caricatures - but this film is not meant to satirise, im sure its meant to be a serious drama isn't it?<br /><br />Dean and others, are too old for their parts. People say Dean is great in this film, and well, maybe he did play his part as well as he possibly could've. His character is meant to be 16 or 17 or so. But Dean was a 24 year old man when he made this film. Seeing him agonise and throw little tantrums like a 4 year old boy... its pathetic.<br /><br />Natalie Wood is gorgeous, but the early scenes at the police station where she is crying and whining are very unconvincing. It sets a bad precedent for the film... and for the rest of it, you feel like cringing every time one of these badly acted emotional scenes comes along.<br /><br />It may've been good for its time, but, really, its drivel.<br /><br />It must've just been hype about Dean's death that has over-inflated the reputation of this film.

Here's what you have to remember about this movie.... IT'S A KIDS MOVIE!!!!! I don't know about the rest of you but I'm an 80s child. I was obsessed with Rainbow Brite. So, naturally I love this movie. But if you watch the other Rainbow Brite movies this one is by far the best. But, like I said, it's a kids movie. You have to judge it as a kids movie. It doesn't matter to kids if the acting, animation or script is fantastic or even good. All they care about is what happens to the characters. If the good guy (or girl) wins then it's a great movie. If not, then it's bad. You all know what I mean. You were all kids once.

this movie is one that belongs on the cutting room floor. For one, the opening sequence does not put forth the element of 'gang' related subject. If it wasn't supposed to then at least they got that part right. Secondly...whats with all the glancing to the left and then to the right??? they even do it in synchronous style. Nowhere have i witnessed a member from a rival crew walk up to a bar, look for someone, from the outside lookin like he is all that and a bag o chips at a barbie and walk away without even being confronted let alone get 'what for'. I wasted money on the rental price and am glad i did not purchase the DVD itself.<br /><br />If this was made by college( T.A.F.E ) students then at least they gave it the old Aussie try. Better luck next time.

I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."<br /><br />Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.<br /><br />From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.<br /><br />I give it a 2/10.

This is a classic action flick from the '80s featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his most memorable roles. Set in a futuristic police state where the government controls everything, including the television networks. One of their most popular TV shows is "The Running Man", where convicted felons are hunted down and killed for the entertainment of millions. It's set up like a game show, where the audience votes for their favorite "stalkers", trained killers who hunt down and kill the show's unlucky "contestants". Audience members also win prizes for correctly predicting who will be killed by whom. And the host is played by none other than Family Feud's Richard Dawson, who's game show experience makes him well suited for this role. When Ben Richards (Arnold) is falsely accused of mass murder, he is forced to play this sadistic game.<br /><br />This movie is chock full of classic Arnold one-liners, such as his famous "I'll be back" right before he enters the arena. And he taunts a stalker armed with a flamethrower with "How about a light?" I could go on and on, but I don't want to spoil the movie. It's funny stuff!<br /><br />Whether it was intended or not, this movie serves as a great parody of today's "Reality TV" craze. Already there are numerous programs that show people enduring pain and humiliation for the entertainment of viewers, and even court cases are televised for their "entertainment value". Running Man demonstrates what would happen if reality TV hit rock bottom, and it is a scary picture. One can only hope that the networks have the common sense not to let it go that far.<br /><br />Overall, this is a fun film & I highly recommend it. 9 out of 10!

What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.<br /><br />Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.<br /><br />So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.<br /><br />This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.<br /><br />What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies.

Yeah, it is. In fact, it's somewhere in my top 20 all time favorite movies. Number 15, I think. Anyways, I'm usually not one for plots, but I think plots work better in anime and RPG video games, (Final Fantasy 7, for example) and not movies. But this one has it all. Vivid drawings of planets, stars, an extremely well written screenplay. While this is not really for children, they can still watch it, it contains no graphic blood, guts and silicone. But I don't think they're going to understand it.

`It's as if this town has the power to suck your brain right out of your head.' -Patti<br /><br />Patti (Christina Ricci) is a sarcastic teenaged girl, bored with her all-too-average little town. Bored that is until a woman is kidnapped and she finds what she believes to be clues to the poor lady's whereabouts. Now, with the help of her precious cat `D.C.' and an inept FBI agent (Doug E. Doug) she must find her.<br /><br />That Darn Cat is a bad movie. It is quite foolish and it has humor that often falls quite flat. There are, however, a few buds of talent in it. Doug E. Doug was good in Cool Runnings. His performance as `Senga' was really funny. Here he is wasted as the bumbling FBI agent. He does have a good scene when he imitates the cat, though. Micheal Mckean plays Patti's father. His character must be the most understanding parent to ever live. This poor guy has his expensive cigar crushed, gets arrested for picking up his own cat, and gets bitched-at by his snippy wife and STILL doesn't get angry at his daughter for causing all of his troubles. I wish my old man was like that. The only real good performance is Christina Ricci's. She entertaining as the ever-annoyed Patti, but her occasional very bad dialogue pulls her performance down. You might also recognize Peter Boyle (Young Frankenstein, Everybody Loves Raymond), the old lady from Wings and Cliff from Cheers, in this movie. This is a movie that all these actors would probably like to forget. Even the cat isn't very good... I really can't recommend 1997's That Darn Cat. Some young children (under 8) might enjoy it a bit, but every one else should look elsewhere. If you're looking for a good Christina Ricci movie, I suggest Addams Family Values, The Opposite of Sex or Sleepy Hollow. If a fun family film is what you're after, try Snow Day, instead.<br /><br />

This movie had very few moments of real drama. After the opening minutes the film descended in a spiral that didn't quite take us to hell and back - viewing was pure purgatory to say the least. The acting was more horrendous than the subject matter of the film and at times I couldn't stop laughing. The continuity between some of the scenes was dire - characters disappeared from scenes without explanation only to be replaced by other characters who minutes earlier had been some where else. Surely this was a spoof of The Exorcist. The collection plate at the church must have been full of copper the day Mr Russo signed up for this one. Do I speak Latin? Et tu Brutus.

Yet again, Madhur Bhandarkar takes you on a ride to the wild side. And a remarkable one it is, literally and figuratively.<br /><br />Mumbai hi-society -- stars and starlets, glam dolls and witch doctors, business tycoons and broker types, yep the whole stinking lot -- are in sharp focus here. In typical tabloid fashion, their worlds unfold, with every colorful story a clever sub-plot in itself.<br /><br />A struggling starlet dumped by the producer after getting her pregnant, the stewardess and her high-profile husband, the pedophile businessman and his neurotic wife, the reporters and the police captain; all shades on display and countless hues in between.<br /><br />Bhandarkar does a swell job of digging up the dirt on the drama kings, the dancing queens and the living dead. Atul Kulkarni packs a punch, as does Boman Irani and Sandhya Mrudul. Konkona Sen Sharma is effective as the ex-crime beat reporter, but she could have been dolled up a little in keeping with the job change and the party circuit.<br /><br />Highly focused (running time 140 min) and refreshingly different film, well worth the money.

Yes, this movie is bad. What's worse is that it takes no advantage whatsoever of its own title!! In the ENTIRE movie, zombies and vampires fight each other ONCE OR TWICE. On top of that, we're never really sure if the main character in the movie is DEFINITELY a vampire. One might argue they were trying to "tone it down" or make it "realistic," but it ends up just boring. More than half of this movie takes place IN A CAR. The scenes that take place anywhere else aren't much to brag about, either. Also, there's no clear antagonist, and in the end you have no idea what really happened for the last 30 minutes of the movie. <br /><br />However, I will say that for a film this low in production value, the soundtrack was surprisingly appropriate and instrumented (with either an origonal score or sampled music from elsewhere). <br /><br />I'm all for independent films, but it doesn't look like this was ever intended for a mass audience (if any). <br /><br />"worse than Scarecrow slayer."

Boyle Heights, Los Angeles: legendary South American goat-sucking vampire, El Chupacabra, is on the loose, feeding on anyone unlucky enough to cross its path. Animal control officer Navarro (Eric Alegria) and Chupacabra expert/author Starlina Divide (Elina Madison) attempt to track down the creature, but find their progress hampered by a pair of dumb cops, money hungry locals keen to capture the beast for a fat reward, and a couple of nefarious scientists who want the monster for their experiments.<br /><br />Stinking higher than a two-week-old taco, El Chupacabra is an incredibly bad horror movie that even fans of incredibly bad horror movies might struggle to sit through. With its dreadful script, awful direction (by not one, but two talentless hacks—Brennon Jones and Paul Wynne), laughable dialogue, and some of the worst acting this side of a porn flick, I recommend this film about as much as I do drinking the tap water in Mexico.<br /><br />As Navarro and Starlina proceed with their investigations, viewers are treated to some incredibly weak gore, the worst designed book jacket in history, the most unconvincing dead person I've seen since the blinking corpse in Dr. Butcher MD, and a high-tech computerised security system consisting of a keyboard nailed to a post.<br /><br />To be fair, for a guy in a rubber suit, the monster itself is fairly creepy (hairy, with big claws, and a face like a particularly ugly bat), but its appearances are few and far between, with more screen time spent on the tedious trials and tribulations of whiney Officer Navarro than on the killer antics of the titular creature (just how many times is it necessary to see Navarro handing in paperwork to his bitchy boss?).<br /><br />If, like me, you make the mistake of wasting your hard-earned cash on this dreadful latino bilge (in my case, it was a whole 50p), consider using the disc as a coaster for your tequila rather than actually watching it.

This is movie is very touching. I don't care what people say about this movie, this is a very good movie. The performances by Amitabh Bachchan's role has the dying father is great, because he wants to teach his son how to handle life in case something happens to him and Akshay Kumer was great in his role as the spoiled Aditya Thakur. The supporting role of Shefali Shetty who played the role of Sumitra Thakur was magnificent. Priyanka Chopra was good in her small role she had in the movie. Ragpal Yadav as the brain-dead servant and Boman Irani as the show-off father-in law have a very good connection and the comedy scene's were hilarious. The direction is very good.

Man, what a scam this turned out to be! Not because it wasn't any good (as I wasn't really expecting anything from it) but because I was misled by the DVD sleeve which ignorantly paraded its "stars" as being Stuart Whitman, Stella Stevens and Tony Bill. Sure enough, their names did not appear in the film's opening credits, much less themselves in the rest of it!! As it turned out, the only movie which connects those three actors together is the equally obscure LAS VEGAS LADY (1975) – but what that one has to do with THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER is anybody's guess… <br /><br />Even so, since I paid $1.50 for its rental and I was in a monster-movie mood anyhow, I elected to watch the movie regardless and, yup, it stunk! Apart from the fact that it had a no-name cast and an anonymous crew, an unmistakably amateurish air was visible from miles away and the most I could do with it is laugh at the JAWS-like pretensions and, intentionally so, at the resistible antics of two moronic layabouts-cum-boat owners who frequently squabble among themselves with the bemused local sheriff looking on. The creature itself – a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish – is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half!

This is a top finnish film this year,although Tango Kabaree comes close.The Director Lampela made couple of years back another nice little film called Rakastin epätoivoista naista (I was in love with a desperate woman).Joki is truly true-to-life beautiful film of one saturday afternoon in a little village/town.The actors are maybe not so handsome or beautiful but they do act beautifully.I certainly do hope that many of them get JUSSI statue (finnish OSCAR) next spring.I think this film could make it abroad as well.

My girlfriend has the habit of going to Blockbuster and choosing movies no-one has ever heard anything about. Admittedly, at times, it has led to some fun discoveries. Often times, the best that can be said is they definitely run an hour and a half.<br /><br />She brought home "Advice From A Caterpillar." She was excited because the box said it was funny. Lucky for us, the propaganda on the boxes never lie.<br /><br />This movie was an exercise in patience. This is one of those movies where, unless you are a pretentious and shallow person who likes watching movies about yourself, you will hate every character in the movie. Until the introduction of the one nice character. Which the lead annoying pretentious character will fall in love with and act in such a way that, in the real world, would drive anyone away.<br /><br />MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON<br /><br />So a bunch of emotionally vapid, stuck-up, pretentious artists swear off love and find success in their careers. Then, they meet a nice, intelligent, emotionally mature and loving character (an almost perfect guy). We then watch the woman, the annoyingly pretentious artist (in her 30's?) freak out as she falls in love. So she tries to flee from the nice, intelligent, emotionally mature man and stay with the married man with whom she's been having great but empty sex. She is rude to the man and does everything in her power to drive him away. In the real world, she would have been quite successful. I certainly wanted to flee from her and I wasn't even in a relationship with her!<br /><br />Although its nice that the man 'fought for his love', I never wanted her to have him. (Nor did my girlfriend) She didn't deserve him. And, why I wonder, did the director think that the 'almost perfect guy' should be punished by having to win a relationship with her? When the artist was asking the 'almost perfect guy' to leave, we were screaming for him to leave too. There's a problem with a movie when the heroine of the film is so annoying, childish and stupid that you want her to fail.<br /><br />Beyond that, let me say that Andy Dick made me laugh a few times even though his character was also pretentious to the point of annoyance. Regarding the other characters, they were well acted, morally bankrupt and annoying characters.<br /><br />It is a comedy and I can say I did laugh a few times in the film. Unfortunately, not much laughing happened until the last 10 minutes or so. But by the time I had those laughs, I had been praying for the movie to end for far too long. I needed to get these vapid characters out of my life.<br /><br />If you want to watch people you hate struggle with a love for people they don't deserve, then this is the movie for you.

Shintarô Katsu gained tons of fame playing the wonderful character, Zatoichi. The Zatoichi films had a weird and unbelievable concept--a blind guy is the greatest swordsman in Japan and spends each movie righting wrongs and exacting retribution on evil doers. He's a heck of a nice guy and the films are exciting and addictive (I've actually seen every movie). It is because of this I saw this final installment of the Hanzo the Razor series, as I assumed it would be very similar....and boy was I wrong! It turns out that the Hanzo films are extremely sexual in nature and they also promote the rape of "women who deserve it". You see, Hanzo is a policeman from the Meiji period and he regularly takes evil women into custody and interrogates them by violently raping them with his "penis of steel". How he made his member so strong is something you have to see to believe, but it certainly is NOT for the squeamish.<br /><br />Overall, I just can't recommend anyone sees these violent and misogynistic films. However, from looking at the other reviews, I can see that they are still very popular...and that is pretty scary. Despite some decent acting and amazing fight scenes, the films just are like brain pollution--and I'd hate to imagine how the films might have contributed to violence towards women.

...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.

I liked it! The plot was weird, Drew Barrymore and DC making out was awkward for both of them. Drews acting was dodgy in places but this could be down to her life at the time. Dennis Christopher as the shrink was pretty cool, and as always he does his best - i'm a major Dennis fan anyway, that's why i bought the DVD.<br /><br />I didn't get the ending! that weird animatronic red skeleton thing looked just like it was out of filmschool, which is OK i guess but it could have been more. <br /><br />....and the whole thing with the knife- if it was that uncomfortable why didn't they just get rid of it? <br /><br />It was very confusing as to when it was the Doppelganger weird thing or when it was DC-or was it Dennis all the time? Because the Doppelganger made out with Dennis and Patrick. In the scenes with Patrick if it was Dennis as the Doppelganger then I think Patrick would notice.<br /><br />The music was OK but obtrusive in places, the whole orchestral score seemed to be revolving around a theme but this theme was overdone.<br /><br />A big mix of lots of blood and gratuitus shots of Drew nude. <br /><br />All in all a bit of a GPM-Guilty Pleasure Movie. Don't read too much into it, don't look for secret messages and a fantastic script because you wont find it. There are some diamond moments and goofs galore- WATCH IT AND JUST HAVE A BIT OF FUN WITH IT!

While I loved this movie, the trailers that circulated the internet the year before it hit theaters set my expectations a bit high.<br /><br />I own the DVD, so don't get me wrong, I am not saying don't watch it or even buy it! It's just that I still think the first scene was the best, and nothing throughout the entire movie ever topped it.

(spoilers)<br /><br />I was blown away by this movie. I've been renting on movielink for a bit, and decided to check this movie out. Alot of boxing movies seem to overblow the blood. In this movie, it shows it at the amature level. Though I do wish that perhaps more attention would have been brought to perhaps her improving her grades. The movie points out the problems some families face with gender.<br /><br />I was a bit concerned with the ending. But the ending wasn't a disappointment either.<br /><br />I think it was pretty clear by the title that she'd win. What was unexpected was that the two of them got back together sort of at the end.<br /><br />Loved the score for some of the scenes. Highly recommended.<br /><br />10/10<br /><br />Quality: 9/10<br /><br />Entertainment: 10/10<br /><br />Replayable: 10/10

And the Oscar for the most under-rated classic horror actor goes to - Dwight Frye. Seriously his name should be stated with the same awe as Karloff, Lugosi, and Price, and this movie proves it. His character Herman was one of the 2 reasons I can give to watch this movie. Dwight gave this somewhat more than slightly disturbed misfit a lovable yet creepy demeanor that led you hoping for a larger role the entire movie.<br /><br />The other reason is the comic relief of M. Eburne. Being in the medical profession myself I have to give kudos to the expert performance of a self-pity prone hypochondriac. Though other "medical mistakes" did give a brief chuckle especially when the good doctor samples his fellow physicians medication... "Well continue giving it to her" Unfortunately these 2 outstanding performances could not keep me awake through 3 attempts of sitting through this unbearably slow movie. The plot is predictable with only few minor twists. The filming while pulling off a legitimate spooky atmosphere was more productive at making me yawn - yes you can use too much shadow.<br /><br />My recommendation - watch this once to see Frye and Eburne - but only when wide awake and with lots of caffeine.

Seagal needs to get back to basics breaking bones and kicking butt. No more of this slow motion crap like foreigner and in the shadows fighting like half past dead. Exit wounds showed more of his fighting skills with some wires which was ok but then he went back to b movie directors.

Wow probable the worst movie i have ever seen!! This person should never make another movie!!I cant believe anyone would have produce this in good conscience.YOu have have wasted every cent. No concept of real life. I have wasted 2 hours of my life i will never get back. EVER!!! Everyone who worked on this show should be embarrassed!!!!!! I'm embarrassed for them! All of you should be ashamed. If i was gay i would want to tell the director that they have personally set back gay rights progress by 5 years. Please never watch this movie.I have never written a blogg about a film before but The distaste for this film has compelled me to do so.

The thing which makes "Fire" even more appealing to watch apart from its magical artistry, is its touch of femininism and rebellion. To my mind, the very character played by Shabana Azmi is a symbol of the Indian feminine protest against the Indian society. The name of the movie and the scene when Radha walks through flames in her kitchen are symbloic of Hindu Mythology's Lord Rama's wife Sita's walking through fire for the proof of her immaculacy, as per the same narrative which appears in the film too. The film could be a great inspiration for women, particularly those in the subcontinent, to search for their liberties and to attain control of their lives.

I have not seen such a stupid,dumb movie since quite a while. It absolutely has no logic, no horror- doesn't scare you, no suspense, not thrilling.. I mean I didn't find even one part of the movie appealing..<br /><br />I don't know what they were thinking when they made the movie.. You watch the whole movie to find out that, there is a plant that can walk around, drag human dead bodies and eat human flesh. Not just that but it can also talk i.e. imitate sounds, like a cellphone ringing or human talking... so its like, the plant makes the noise of a cell phone ringing, so they go after the cellphone and find out its a plant... how intelligent of the plant to setup an ambush. <br /><br />This clearly is the creativity level of a primary school kid... Bad!!!

This movie should have been called "The Eyes of Alexander", and they should have done away with the Bogart concept altogether. The film started out with a lighthearted approach to Bogart's legacy and some comical moments with his surgery oriented face, but after the first 15-30 minutes it morphs into a more serious thriller, where two palm size sapphires, purportedly laid as eyes into a marble headpiece of Alexander the Great, for him, and seen by him, right before his death. So the gems are of great value not only because of their quality and size, but also because of the tie to the Greatest conquerer the world has ever known. Being an expert on Alexander qualifies me to say that this is wholly and completely a fiction, but it makes for a good movie anyway. So the film winds around some early silliness and stumbles along with all sorts of Alexander allusions in both the foreground and background (which I really liked), ending with a dated shark attack (you couldn't go to a movie in '79-'80 without some shark showing up to menace the audience). There is a yacht named Euridice (Alexander's father's young wife), a man named Alexander, Philip, Cleitus?, (it's been about 5 years since I've seen the film, so can't remember all the details), Olympias, some street names, and many others. It was fun to watch the film just to try to catch all the background details that the director (obviously an Alexanderphile himself) put in. When all is said and done, the eyes are retrieved and the camera pans in on them on a bed as the credits roll by. Kind of a neat ending. What would have been more fun would be if they went the Indiana Jones way and had an action adventure. There were many, many real artifacts that could have been used to make this more interesting, or instance, the hand-annotated (by Aristotle) version of the Iliad that Alexander kept with him all his life, even on his many journeys across Asia (would be of incalculable value if found today). Olivia Hussey (my all time favorite b-movie actress)is killed off way too early, and should have been the main actress throughout, not the girl from the Momma's and the Poppa's...though she was herself easy on the eyes. If you can find this flick, it might be worth checking out for the historical stuff and to see Olivia Hussey in an extremely funny deadpan humor bit early on, but beyond that, I'd pass on it for something more entertaining.<br /><br />Yours, Nick