Datasets:

Deysi

/

split-imdb

like 0

Beethovan Lives Upstairs is a very bad movie. In my World History class, our teacher had us watch this movie and Amadeus to be able to compare the two composers or something. We watched Amadeus first and it was a very good movie, but when she had us watch this movie directly after that, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The acting was horrific, the costumes were ugly (the little boy's was especially ugly and girlish), and the cinematography was z-grade. My Friend compared it to a home movie without the date display in the bottom right corner. I understand this was a T.V. movie from Canada and probably cost $10 to make, but please, they could have done better. I have seen a few good T.V. movies in my time, but this was not one of them. The biggest thing that I don't understand is why my World History class couldn't just watch Immortal Beloved or something. How is it possible to compare composers when given the movie Amadeus, for Mozart, and Beethovan Lives Upstairs, for Beethovan? It's not possible to do that when this is the choice of movie for Beethovan. I give Amadeus an A- (9 out of 10) if anyone cares to know, but Beethovan Lives Upstairs gets an F (1 out of 10).

This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.<br /><br />Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.

Dallas stars Gary Cooper, Ruth Roman, Steve Cochran, Barbara Payton & Raymond Massey. It's directed by Stuart Heisler, photography is from Ernest Haller & pen duties fell to John Twist. Produced out of Warner Brothers, Dallas is vividly filmed in Technicolor out of the Iverson & Warner ranches in California. Very much a film with its tongue firmly in cheek, the film is a throwback to the Westerns of yore that exist without pretensions or deep penetrative meanings.<br /><br />The plot sees Cooper's Civil War renegade, Blayde "Reb" Hollister, fake his own death so as to kill off his reputation and to free himself for the pursuit into Dallas of the brothers who massacred his family. In essence a routine plot, Twist's story is perked up along the way by many a fun and exciting diversion. There's role reversals, dandy fashions, horseback pursuits, shoot outs, a love triangle, vigorous dialogue and deft little twists to keep the piece purely from painting it by numbers.<br /><br />Cooper seems to be enjoying himself too, which further enhances the feel good factor on offer. It's true he isn't really asked to do anything more than be a laconic dude on a mission. But when called on for action duties, he delivers the goods that his fans have come to expect during his successful career. The villains entertain {particularly Steve Cochran's vile and dopey Bryant Marlow} because each have their own little peccadilloes to keep them from over familiar blandness. The two ladies of the piece look gorgeous and hold up well in amongst the machismo, while the high production value allows Haller to really treat the eyes with the lush Technicolor and involving camera work around the locations.<br /><br />It has ideals to being an A list Oater does Dallas, something it just can't quite attain. But it's not for lack of trying and the end result is one of pure entertainment, that, in truth, should be enjoyed on a cold winters day when the viewer needs a pick me up. 7/10

Long trailer? whoever said that has got to be joking. this has got to be one of the most in depth behind the scenes or making of documentary ever made. how can it be a trailer when several minutes are spent telling the audience how the movie was conceptualized and then brought to the studios? this documentary also spends lots and lots of time detailing how stunts were done and the new technologies created to achieve them. then it shows us how woo ping's team came up with the fight scenes along with blocking tapes that pretty much put to shame the actual scenes with the actors. there is stuff mentioned about matrix reloaded, but there's hardly anything really. if you are a real fan of the matrix, you have to see this documentary. the original documentary in the dvd is good, but incomplete compared to this one. for instance, it never explained why keanu wore a neck brace in the original documentary, but that is explained in Revisited. the Revisited dvd also shows carrie ann moss spraining her ankle during the lobby scene and being really distraught because she feels like she's letting the crew down. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. so ignore that "just a long trailer" review and go check it out for yourself. you won't regret it. casual matrix fans need not apply...

It's hard to imagine that anyone could find this short their favorite if they have seen most of their shorts, but I know that humor is VERY subjective. I have seen all of their sound shorts (by far the best of their stuff IMO) and I found this one of their weaker efforts.<br /><br />In the year this was made (1930) Stan and Babe made 15 shorts and one feature. They were extremely popular and their boss Hal Roach took full advantage by keeping them working constantly. In addition, this was a time of experimentation for the writers and Stan. I would say this was an experiment that really did not work. As someone else said, it does not play to their strengths. Too much dialog and plot.<br /><br />The best part of this one for me is the largely improvised sequence with Stan as Agnes the maid and the great Thelma Todd talking about "girl" stuff.<br /><br />If you really want to see the boys at their most creative and funny check out Blotto, or Brats From the same year.<br /><br />They made so many shorts in such a short time that I think they can be forgiven for turning out a few less then par shorts. They made something like 108 films altogether. Very few (except for the ones made at FOX) were outright failures but there are some. County Hospital, Me And My Pal, The Live Ghost, The Fixer Uppers come to mind as essentially weak ones. But other then those I find something wonderful in just about all their shorts. Quite a record in my book.<br /><br />If you have seen and enjoyed all their other shorts then by all means check this one out, but I would be willing to bet that this one was less then memorable to Stan and Babe.

Spoilers! Classic 70's sex trash! The Swedish gal (Helga) was what made this movie so great. She was beautiful, but what really got to me was how sexual she was. She exuded massive quantities of sexuality throughout the film. Her best scenes were when she was, er, stimulating herself. Whenever she was on screen, I became transfixed.<br /><br />Also, the Doctor Julia (sister of the dimwitted male focus of the film) was very interesting visually. Although most 12 year old girls have bigger breasts than Julia, she knew how to use what little she had and her scenes (especially the scenes with the silk blouse and black skirt) also grabbed my attention unmercilessly. You also got to love the major hoaky scene where the bats stripped her nekkid; I don't know if I've ever seen anything more ludicrous yet sexy at the same time. Classic stuff!

I believe I received this film when I was a young buck. I remembered watching it as a child, but i could never find the film. I remembered good ol Rageddy Ann, Andy, Babette, the Greedy, King Koo Koo. I searched high and low for this movie and still no luck. But one day when I was moving out of my childhood home I had found it. We were reunited. I am 17 years old now. I still watch it. All the time actually. It's one of the funniest and touching movies I have ever seen and enjoyed at the same time. And personally I think they should make a sequel. Mmm, yes a sequel indeed. Now i am even considering getting the captains bird tattooed somewhere on my body!

Although the film is the adaptation of the French play (forgot the name - sorry), it is a wonderful portrayal of the cheerful side of Georgian character. This film will make you to burst into laughter and will fill your heart with warm sadness. It will display the overwhelming love of life along with human eccentricities.

So this made for TV film scores only a 7.6 on this site? Bah! Humbug! Without question this 1984 version of Dickens' classic tale is the best ever made. And yes, the Hound has seen the 1951 version which was also good, but not good enough. The lack of color is perhaps the biggest shortcoming of that version, although the acting was wonderful.<br /><br />George C. Scott is simply incredible as Ebenezer Scrooge. We all know the story of this stingy businessman who is haunted by the ghost of his dead partner, then by three other spirits later on that evening. Scott is properly gruff as Scrooge. Too gruff in fact for some critics who claim he is unable to project the new-found glee that he awakens to on Christmas morning after the spirits teach him a valuable lesson. But hey, this is George C. Scott. He's never going to go dancing down the street in a fit of joy. He has too much dignity, and his Scrooge projects his emotion in a realistic manner.<br /><br />The supporting performances are uniformly excellent, as are the costumes, music, and scenery. 19th Century London comes to life in Clive Donner's visionary style. The film even borders on frightening in several scenes involving the spirits. The important tale of morality shines through in every frame, though.<br /><br />You won't often find this version aired on television anymore, and that is a disappointment. The 1984 version of A Christmas Carol should be a required part of every household's celebration of the holiday. When the decorations come out of the basement, this film should find its way into the DVD player at least once during the season.<br /><br />10 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.

Good drama/comedy, with two good performances from Hunter & Hurt, but Albert Brooks steals every scene he is in. With a great script, this movie soars and gives everyone a chance to show their acting talent. And although Joan Cusack is not in this much, but she has one if not the funniest scene in the movie. The highlight of the movie for me, was Albert Brooks speech on the devil. Only one draw back is the fact it goes little slow in places. And I only got totally interested in Brooks role, not so much in Hunter's or Hurt's. I give this a 7 out of 10.

The plot involves a new, hipper franchise barbershop that is moving across the street from Calvin's barbershop. So, he feels like he has to change and improve his shop by getting newer stuff and such. Sounds real exciting huh. As for the rest of the film, a lot of it involves the same material from the first film. The people that work at Calvin's stand around, talk loud, and mouth off to each other and the customers. Once again Cedric the Entertainer was mildly funny, but it is more like he's doing a stand-up routine than anything to do with the movie. And Calvin is faced with another moral issue involving taking a large sum of money. He's already shown that he will do the right thing in the end.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Nothing new. I don't recommend it unless you thought the first Barbershop was the best thing since sliced bread.

Sometimes realism can work against the effectiveness of a film. That's no problem here. The sets are cheesy, inside and out. The fog is ubiquitous, half disguising the shabbiness of the production. If there's a bar, the name painted on the front window says simply, "Wine And Spirits." The result is a claustrophobic set of scenes. Not a single shot of a city or even a fake skyline. That's the kind of Dublin this story is about, just as Jack the Ripper movies are about seedy, foggy, cobblestoned Whitechapel. Who would want it any other way? How could it have been any other way with no bankable stars, a minuscule budget, and a four-week shooting schedule? The acting follows suit -- outrageously hammy on everyone's part. Sometimes, my God, it's positively excruciating. Mrs. McPhillips moaning after Frankie is shot dead outside the house. Victor McLaglin however delivers exactly the right kind of overdone performance. Wardrobe has stuffed him into a too-small jacket so that he seems to be bursting out of it like Frankenstein's monster. His every movement seems to go a little farther than it was intended to. When he slaps his cap on his head, he bops himself on the temple. A big, blustering, blubbering baby, he seems constantly drunk. He betrays his best friend for the reward money which will take him and his would-be girl to America, not a good guy in the ordinary sense. Yet we wince as he begins to spend the 20 pounds, more and more of it during a wild, alcoholic night, because every expensive and grandiose gesture takes him farther from his dream. I wouldn't argue it, but I can understand why he won an Oscar.<br /><br />As for Max Steiner's score, wow. Every movement, already overdone, is not only underlined by the Mickey Mouse music but highlighted in glossy yellow. It shouldn't have happened -- the heavenly choirs, the endearing young charms, the minstrel boy, the gurgling tune while McLaglen drinks from the bottle. It would have been better off with no score at all.<br /><br />Well, how is it as a whole? Dated -- by any measure, but not a product of its times. That's why I admire it. Yes, the symbolism is clumsy at times. McLaglen, a real dummy, bumping his head against a hanging sign. The fog. The blind man. But what impresses me is how little of this was being tried at the time. What strikes us as overly arty today was in 1936 something quite different from what was seen in most of the programmers being ground out at the time. If it falls short at times, it doesn't matter. The movie was an act of courage, politically and morally as well as poetically. (The legion of decency condemned it because of a scene in a brothel.) A director's goal should exceed his grasp, or what's a script for? Watching it now, however, in 2006, the story is more disturbing than ever. John Ford obviously sympathized with the Irish rebels. They kill, but only out of what they see as necessity. ("He knows too much to live. What if he goes to the Tans? Oh, it's not me-self I'm thinking of but all of us, of Ireland herself.") The Irish are sentimentalized and sympathetic. I wonder if the Jihadists in the Middle East don't use a similar logic to justify their acts of violence.

This was obviously a low budget film. It shows in every scene. What is nice to see is where it was made. A lot of the film was shot in Columbia, CA, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Sonora, CA. Some of the film was also shot in Jamestown, CA, very near Columbia. There is a railroad museum in Jamestown and they used some of the old trains in the picture. "High Noon" was also shot in Jamestown, as was "Back to the Future III".

This film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.<br /><br />From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.<br /><br />I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!<br /><br />

<br /><br />This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.<br /><br />If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme.

I saw this movie many years ago, and just for kicks decided to rent it and watch it again. The plot is a carbon copy from Fright Night. I did like the hairy vampire and the bug eating driver. Otherwise it was not good at all.

i think this one sucked on ice, because it left the cube, and gave us to much information as to the who's and why's. The original CUBE never left the cube, and it left everything to your imagination. This crap fest however, gives you it all. and i didn't like it...Though the acting is solid, I think the reason this one was a downer was because it was done by people other than the ORIGINAL filmmakers, if they had Vincenzo Natali do this prequel, or even the sequel i think it would have done better and would have been more true to the source. so i recommend you stay far, far away from this one, and HYPERCUBE, another movie i don't even want to discuss...(i gave it a 2 for the acting only)

I heard so much about this movie how it was a great slasher and one of those early 80's movies that die hard fans of most slasher movies just had to see. Well, I rented it and I have to say that although it kept my attention as far as the suspense goes for most slasher films such as "April Fools Day", "Friday 13th" and "Prom Night", this film could have been right up there with the above mentioned only it lacked true enthusiasm and potential from the characters as well as the on going story. Characters that I found were unfortunate to be in this movie was the weirdo guy with the frizzy hair that kept creeping around the dorm and of course leading up to his true climatic role during the end with he faces the killer. Another would be the dirty scruffy looking guy with the jean jacket, he could have played more roles in this movie that might have made the movie more interesting, instead, the movie played this guy as just another loser out there making unknown calls while he sleeps with his girlfriend and then drops his part and cuts him off until the end which was a waste, I was disappointed in his part in the end. As far as the true identity of the killer goes, when the identity was released as to who he was, I just laughed, but it was all to obvious and he really made a true jerk out of himself as well as an annoying character after his true intentions were revealed. This movie should be one to at least watch once for all slasher fans but don't spend your hard earned money on it in some rare hard to find collectors inventory.

This movie is an exact copy of a TV series on Indian television channel doordarshan Which was aired at least 15 years ago. The series was known as "gubbarre" meaning balloons. Each episode was a new short story. The story is excellent and the original is much sweeter and "convincing" Abhay Doel does a good job but he doesn't fit the role of a "normal" and "third class" guys(as he calls himself in the movie). In fact Shayan Munshi with his hair cut short and without the designer clothes would have fitted the Abhays role but Shayan just doesn't have the talent to pull it off.<br /><br />I would suggest watching the series if it is available. It is the same story except for the running around with the friends mother and the initial introduction. The acting of the TV actors was much better than these "stars".<br /><br />The only reason this movies is a flop is because the director tried to stretch half an hour(or 45 minutes) story to 2+ hours. So it has to get draggy. Even the nasal singing sensations songs could not make up.<br /><br />This movies is good for a lazy Sunday afternoon and is really refreshing if you haven't watched the original TV serial. The script and the ending of the serial was much better<br /><br />#####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### #####SPOILERS AHEAD######### THe ending of the original serial was much stronger as the hero himself dumps the girl even thought she is willing to marry him. HE is aware and tell her that he doesn't want to be "repayed" and never helped with that intention. The director or the script writes somehow could not capture the original ending in this film. The original ending would have bought tears to the girls eyes and would have had the guys nodding in agreement. The deliver just wasn't right.<br /><br />But personally I feel this is a pathetic copy. No credit should be given to the director/scriptwriter. The story is amazing and is by one of the famous novel writers int he class of PRemchand munshi. I am not sure if this is premchand munshi's story but many of the other short stories int he series feature a few of premchand munshi's and other great Hindi writers stories.

This movie is hilarious. The problem is that it's not a comedy. One classic scene involves Kurt Thomas just happening to find a pommel-horse in the middle of a village square (which he uses to pummel the bad guys.) Another is the trek into the "Village of Crazies." Too bad this movie wasn't made to be a farce, or it may have gotten better ratings.

Rural family drama--with perhaps a nod to "Ordinary People"--concerns a young boy who withdraws into himself after fatally wounding his older brother in a shooting mishap. Despite downbeat subject matter (given mercilessly glum treatment by director Christopher Cain), there are some dynamics in this sad story worth exploring. Unfortunately, the isolated farming atmosphere and the reluctance of the adult characters to take charge of the situation render the film a stultifying experience. What with Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, and Wilford Brimley in the cast, the movie is nearly a small-scaled reunion of "The Natural". Too bad this project didn't get the necessary talent behind the camera to really eke out a gripping, memorable picture. *1/2 from ****

Many questions arise about the making of this film. The first of which is: Why make a film that plays out as little more than an awkward female fantasy? It's one thing to leave an audience with issues to discuss about a film's intent, it's something entirely different to go into the process of writing a script which fails to adequately address real human issues before they are rendered on the screen.<br /><br />Why the outrageously melodramatic and often comical soundtrack? Why the excessive and frequently clunky dialogue? Why is the lead character's girlfriend one of the hooded abductors? What purpose is there to turning the lead character's freedom from abduction into a joke by having him complete his "mission"? (This is a classic Little Aussie Film moment. Resort to quirky comedy at the most inappropriate moment.) Why so many scenes where absolutely nothing happens? (This accounts for approximately 15 minutes of the film, which is at least 30 minutes too long.) Why, if a man is imprisoned for so many days, does he not endeavor to make a serious attempt at escape?<br /><br />The Director, who co-wrote the script, has failed on many counts to deliver a satisfactory story. <br /><br />Dave Garver, Australia.

This was an excellent show. It came on PBS back home in Chicago and I remember Cindy Herron (From EnVogue) played the teen aged daughter. The show dealt with subjects such as sex, peer pressure and puberty. IT was about a middle class black family who had a teen aged daughter and son who moved to a middle class neighborhood from Oakland or somewhere (I can't remember). I remember several episodes but the one I remember most was when their cousin got her period for the first time. I was probably 7-8 when I first watched it and I was able to keep up with the program. This was a great show. I can't remember the name of the guy who played the son on the show, but I always got him confused with Kevin Hooks.

Thank God I have fast-forward. I think this is a movie about a guy who rises and falls. Whatever: It's a stupid cliché. It doesn't make any difference. There's this guy, javier Bardem, who constructs buildings or something. It doesn't matter. He is handsome, this Javier Bardem. Who cares? I think there is a car wreck but I watched this in fast-forward, so ...who cares? Car wrecks and handsome heroes who struggle back from them smells like a melodrama to me. Javier likes someone , but he marries Maria de Madeiros instead.She is magnificently, poetically beautiful, with a heart-shaped face. Then Javier has an oral-interface with Maribel Verdu, who washes her vulva, beforehand, for some reason. You would think Maribel Verdu, with her hand-washed vulva would be sexy. No, she is not. This is a tedious story about a bunch of people who don't interest me. Javier, Maribel, and Maria have a threesome: How boring. This film is annoying. I think this might be a minor THEME of (some) Spanish-language movies: The rise and predictable fall of a little guy who succeeds against the odds. Let me just clear this up: this is a high-class melodrama or perhaps soap opera. It is not worth your time, except for a laugh.

Acolytes presents an interesting mix of original concepts in "screaming teen" cliché horror with a more thriller-like pacing. In some ways Acolytes is very successful, but in many other ways the film fails miserably.<br /><br />Overall Acolytes avoided the typical archetypes of the naivety and innocence of youth of endless horror films in the like of Cabin Fever, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and countless other films where unsuspecting and relatively naive and innocent teenagers, have sex, run around screaming and one-by-one are plucked off by some sort of monster. Instead this innocence is replaced with pride, retaliation, and arrogance. The characters had several opportunities to save themselves from immanent death and despair, but failed to do so due to their own personal demons. In the end you were left with the feeling that there were no (and perhaps are no) innocent victims.<br /><br />As the name implies, the film also touches greatly on following a leader or authority. This was used in a direct sense of if the main character would become like the serial killer and was also used less directly throughout the film. Following a central figure is a reoccurring theme throughout the film.<br /><br />Through all this, the film makers also incorporated a lot of cliché, which I suspect was intentional and gave the film a unique mixture of depth as well as shallowness which I found intriguing. This, perhaps inadvertently, plays well with the characters who are, at first appearance very shallow but as the story unfolds it becomes obvious that they are, at least the two main male characters, quite complex.<br /><br />Technically the film has a lot of problems however. The cinematography, which is typically regarded highly, I find rather sophomoric and over-stylized, utilizing formulaic 2/3 approaches far too rigidly. Many transitions I felt were also over-stylized. The use of symbolism was not only vague, but also greatly over used.<br /><br />The plot was poorly planned and relied exclusively on misinformation in order to achieve a rather hokey twist ending, which was poorly resolved and leaves viewers confused. Methods used to resolve the climax are cheap and ill-prepared, motivations are routinely unclear, and major plot points remain untied in the end.<br /><br />Overall, the film's relative originality, themes and thesis are lost in a maze of poor technical execution, over-stylized imagery, unclear motives, obtuse and unnecessary symbolism and cheap twists maintained only by a lack of or entirely incorrect information.<br /><br />If the film were better executed, it would have been excellent. However, Acolytes receives only two stars in my opinion.

I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.<br /><br />The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.<br /><br />Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science.

This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!. All the characters are decent i guess, but the story is so so, however Jackie Chan is still amazing in this even if he did look bored. Jackie and Danny Aiello had zero chemistry together, and it was very boring a lot of times, however the finale was above average and managed to be fairly entertaining, and had some good stunts!. I have not yet seen the Hong Kong version, however i'm sure it's better then this dud, plus the twist is very predictable!. It's really lifeless and bland, and i don't blame Jackie for not looking happy in this, and if he didn't star in this it would have been unbearable and completely unwatchable. The opening is supposed to be memorable, but it's nothing i haven't seen before and done better at that, and i thought the whole film was rather lazy and could have been an awesome film if Jackie had control of it!, plus i really didn't root for any of the characters. This is a very mediocre Jackie Chan film, and one of his absolute worst James Glickenhaus ruined it!, not recommended even for Die hard Jackie Chan fans. The Direction is terrible!. James Glickenhaus does a terrible job here, with extremely bland camera work, bad angles, and keeping the film boring for the most part throughout. The Acting is so so. Jackie Chan is AMAZING as always, however he is not his usual energetic self, and looks bored and Ps*ed off throughout the film, had zero chemistry with Danny Aiello, and i really don't blame him either! (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Danny Aiello is OK here, as Jackie's partner, but his character is a bit of an ass, and he had zero chemistry with Jackie, he did OK i guess. Roy Chiao is decent as the main villain, but was just going through the motions and wasn't all that menacing, he still is damn cool though. Rest of the cast are average at best. Overall Not worth your time or money. *1/2 out of 5

Here's another film that doesn't really need much of a recommendation. It's a classic comedy, very funny and entertaining and which, of course, ultimately inspired a successful television series which many would say was even better (I enjoy both, personally). <br /><br />For some, it's hard to warm up to Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison when they were were weaned on the TV show starring Tony Randall and Jack Klugman (or perhaps vice versa). But what we've got there in both cases are four good actors who in real life seemed so much like their film counterparts that they managed to make these characterizations their own. It's Neil Simon's humorous material that's key, and where the laughs really originate from.<br /><br />For those who have somehow never heard of THE ODD COUPLE, it's the story of a neurotic and fussy neat-freak (Lemmon) who is thrown out of a 12-year marriage by his long-suffering wife and takes up residence in the Manhattan apartment of his sloppy and totally irresponsible buddy (Matthau). Pitting these two unlikely roommates together within the same four walls makes for some hugely funny predicaments.

I watched Asterix and Obelix in Operation Cleopatra, which was my first exposure to the live action version of the classic comic. Like the comic the whole movie is full of jokes based upon puns, anachronistic jokes and slapstick gags which rarely fall flat.<br /><br />Asterix and Obelix are Gauls who use a strength potion to fight the Roman legions in their native Gaul. Here they end up in Egypt helping a friend build Cesar's palace (yes its puny) in three months to prove the Egyptians are just as good as the Romans.<br /><br />The reason I picked this up was because Monica Belluci is Cleopatra. She's good but the role is little more than a cameo. However, even though she's rarely in the film I didn't care since its so clever and the jokes so funny I was in hysterics. I loved it. I loved it so much that I can't understand why the movies have never been released in the United States.<br /><br />The import DVD has the film in English dub- which is quite good especially when you consider that when you watch it in the longer French version the puns (and hence the jokes) are not always apparent since they are aural, so if you read the names wrong the jokes are lost. Most of the jokes between the full French version and the shorter English dub seem to be exactly the same, though some have been changed sometimes for the better and some times for the worse. Personally I'm gonna stick with the dub when I watch this again since its easier to pick up the jokes and enjoy the humor.<br /><br />You really will want to see this if you love puns and low brow, but clever humor This is a great comedy

Apparently, a massive head wound is the cure for homicidal tendencies, turning a murderous sociopath into a lovable and oafish dog catcher. Also (this ones for the ladies), it seems that the front gate of a psychiatric hospital is an overlooked hot spot for meeting potential mates. Those are just two of the approximately 23 absurdities we're supposed to accept for this movie to have any meaning. I love movies and I believed, as I'm assuming many Americans do (forgive me if I'm wrong), that Hollywood turned out the best product. I've come to learn how sadly naive and brainwashed I was and 2) how much more sophisticated European/Asian Cinema is in comparison to its American counterpart.<br /><br />I watched this allegedly disturbing psychological "thriller" the night following a viewing of a Japanese movie called Suicide Club. As the camera faded on Walter Sparrow's happy little family enjoying some quality time around a prison visiting room table (not to mention the patronizing voice-over extolling the virtue of "doing the right thing"), I suddenly had an epiphany. I had just finished watching a movie that left me feeling as though I'd just had a glass of water when I really wanted a beer. My thirst was sated, but it was strictly utilitarian. The premise was mildly interesting, but the story itself, with its innumerable "coincidences" (How do we explain her finding the book? We'll just say something like,"...Or did the book find her?." They'll buy that), gaping plot holes (why did wifey take the skeleton?), predictability, and obligatory happy ending, turned out to be just another Hollywood hack job. Additionally, the casting of Jim Carrey was just…wrong. At any moment, I felt he was capable of breaking into some shtick from one of his stupid comedies or In Living Color. Jim Carrey as a tattooed hard-boiled police detective who enjoys bondage and rough sex? Didn't buy it for a second.<br /><br />You want disturbing? Deeply disturbing? Watch Suicide Club. The story surrounds the mysterious mass suicide of 54 school girls. The film opens with a group of giggling high schoolers mulling about on a subway train platform. We then watch in horror as they line up, hold hands, and happily throw themselves in front of a fast moving commuter train. Needless to say, much chaos ensues. That's as far as I'm going to go with the story line because I encourage the reader to see the film. In fact, I'm not sure if I could outline the plot even if I wanted to. What begins as a straightforward mystery quickly descends into a madhouse of grotesque imagery. Did I understand the movie? No…not initially…like many of the foreign films my girlfriend has introduced me to. So naturally, I thought it was "bad." But this one lingered in my mind. I went to bed thinking on the film and awoke the next morning and looked it up on IMDb. I read some of the viewer comments and was astonished at 1) the insights others had derived from the film and 2) the fact that I had so thoroughly missed the whole point of the movie. I realized that I was so used to being spoon fed the "message" from Hollywood, that when confronted with a film that actually required the viewer to participate…to actually think for themselves, I was totally unequipped. It's as if I had been conditioned to "check my brain at the door" of the theater.<br /><br />Am I saying that Suicide Club is the greatest movie ever made? Of course not. It has its flaws, many of which were reported adroitly by the IMDb reviewers. Am I saying that all American movies are bad and all foreign movies are good? Again…of course not. My point is that there's a whole world of film-making outside of Hollywood…a body of work that engages the viewer; forces them to think and question…movies that don't telegraph plot twists, follow a strict linear sequence, and above all, don't insult the intelligence of the person watching. I look forward to expanding my mind while exploring this new world of film that doesn't "do the thinking for me."

The theatrics and the drama included in the movie is fantastic, but the facts and the research is far from solid. When quoting Dr. Bovon, where the documentary tries to establish a connection to Mary Magdalene from Mariamene, Dr. Bovon later clarifies it should be used for literary purposes (ie: fables of that time) not for a historical figure. In fact he states, he does NOT believe the Mariamene ossuary in Talpiot is Mary Magdalene. He further comments on his public letter, that he was not informed that his words would be used for this documentary but rather for information regarding Acts of Philip (a literary work in the 4th century).<br /><br />So what we have here is a director that took one clip for a 4th century Acts of Philip fantasy and used it specifically to support a 1st century ossuary inscription. A very sad stretch and Dr. Bovon calls the Jesus/Mary Magdalene connection as "science fiction" -- as this documentary should be rightly labeled.

As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed!

Just saw this movie on opening night. I read some other user comments which convinced me to go see it... I must say, I was not impressed. I'm so unimpressed that I feel the need to write this comment to spare some of you people some money.<br /><br />First of all "The Messengers" is very predictable, and just not much of a thriller. It might be scary for someone under 13, but it really did nothing for me. The climax was laughable and most of the audience left before the movie's resolution.<br /><br />Furthermore the acting seemed a little superficial. Some of the emotional arguments between the family were less convincing than the sub-par suspense scenes.<br /><br />If you've seen previews for this movie, then you've seen most of the best parts and have a strong understanding of the plot. This movie is not worth seeing in the theaters.

This was a pretty good film. I'm not sure if this is considered a spoiler comment, but I didn't want to take a chance. Anyway, near the end of the film, the prosecutor reads a Scripture verse and then quotes another from memory. I can't remember the first passage he reads, but the second one is Genesis 9:6. He says it's Genesis 9:12, but he actually quotes verse 6. This is a common passage that many use to defend capital punishment. It's too bad that prosecutors dare not quote the Bible today. Did anybody ever hear of John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice in the history of this country? He said that the Bible is the best of all books. Too bad we've lost that view in America.

I hope the viewer who regards 'Dream Machine' as one of Corey Haim's finest and the "best movies of the century" was kidding. Undetected sarcasm on my part? I sincerely hope so.<br /><br />'The Dream Machine' marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of Corey Haim's career (except 'Prayer of the Rollerboys' which was surprisingly decent). Here, Haim plays nonchalant college boy, Bernie, who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl's attention. Lucky for Bernie, a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband, hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner--Bernie--with a gift: a slick Porsche Turbo. However, unbeknownst to the woman, and unfortunate for Bernie, is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. Now, being that in this movie, bodies don't seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk, Bernie is unaware of this. In fact, the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. In particular, a grizzly man follows him around, desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected.<br /><br />This is a low-grade action fizzle as many of Haim's films like this are (see The Double O Kid). Despite being part action, part romantic comedy, this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty-five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i.e. Bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body, and a hit-man finding out that the Porsche is going to be hard to find). After which, and thanks to poor acting by Haim (I loved this kid, too, but it's not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn't act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between Bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result, inappreciable. To add injury to insult, the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self-evident songs you would hear in Team America (see the 'date' montage).<br /><br />Loyal Corey Haim fans, however, should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. However, others understanding that Haim's career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered, might expect mediocrity, as will viewers just looking for early 90s b-comedy fluff to pass the time.

I am a German student so sorry for eventually mistakes (I'm working on it ;) )<br /><br />The stylistic very interesting converted and with effective sound effects accentuated platitudinous action of the drama deflect in no way from the horrible bad actors (insincere and unnatural moves and expressions of feelings) and makes so the relatively weird and senseless story less better. Just the typical slasher-genre with in this case very odd action. Many by-plays destroy partly the main story and let the viewers up to the end into the dark, create weirdness and let surmise the senses of actions and the point mere hazily. For sure its an hit for slasher-fans but not for me. But although the interesting style of cinematography and adeptly use of light is turned out well.<br /><br />So not the best one...

You don't have to be a Notre Dame football fan to enjoy this, because I am not....but, as a football fan in general, this was fun to watch. It almost makes me a Fighting Irish devotee. If you can't get caught up in the emotion in this film, gridiron fan or not, you better check your pulse because this is an emotional film with some very touching scenes.<br /><br />As a sports fan, I loved watching the classic footage of early college games. They had some pretty wild plays back then with a lot of laterals. They interspersed that footage with Pat O'Brien shown as head coach Knute Rockne on the sidelines and some of the players, such as George Gipp (Ronald Reagan). <br /><br />Reagan gets pretty good billing in this film but his part really isn't that large. O'Brien is the only actor with a large role in here. The rest - all playing nice characters - include Gale Page as Rockne's wife "Bonnie;" Donald Crisp, as the Notre Dame's "Father John Callahan;" Albert Bassermann as chemistry professor "Father Nieuwland" and Reagan, as Gipp, perhaps Notre Dame's most talented and famous player ever.<br /><br />What this film does nicely is balance the personal story with the football. Neither angle is overdone. The characters in here all people you can root for, as there are no villains. On my last look, it was interesting to discover Johnny Sheffield - Tarzan's son - playing Rockne at the age of seven and to see George Reeves, TV's Superman, as one of the players. <br /><br />There have been very few football movies made in Hollywood, for some reason, and precious few good ones. This is one of them.

I really felt the movie was ahead of its time. The one potential daughter-in-law was such a strong, career oriented woman. She knew what she wanted and was diplomatic but firm with the over-bearing mother-in-law to be. The mother's role was played extremely well (you just loved to hate her). Her need to control her son's lives was neurotically evil. If you've ever been in a relationship where you've been judged and found lacking (and everybody involved knew it) this may hit too close to home. It's been years since I saw this movie and I remember thinking that this plot and dialog would work in a 50's or 60's movie. It is difficult to watch because of the mother and sons' dynamic but I would love to watch it again. I keep hoping to find it on one of the old movie channels but so far no luck. Attempts to buy it were also futile (I don't believe it's on tape or DVD).

WARNING: SPOILERS Dear Roger,<br /><br />During your distinguished career, you've made a wide range of entertainment, some good, some notsogood. "Night of the Blood Beast" falls in the latter category. It's not as unredeemingly awful as say, "The Phantom From 10,000 Leagues" or, maybe, "The Dunwich Horror." Nonetheless, one of my greatest criticisms of this movie is that I could have made it for you faster, better and cheaper.<br /><br />Let's start with the foreward and titles. Roger, the rocket sequences look like something from Disney's "Man Into Space," not as good, of course. The futuristic rocketship looks like nothing in contemporary 1958. Why didn't you just use a Vanguard, Atlas, or even a Viking launch? Better still, why not dispense entirely with the launch and start with a shot of space and the capsule floating in it? That's what I would have done for you, Roger. Second, why have the spaceship crash upon reentry? Even a middle school physics student could have told you, your astronaut would have arrived on earth extra crispy and largely deboned. I would have shown your astronaut becoming "possessed" by the monster (maybe by using that great "negative/positive" stuff you used in "War of the Satellites"), losing contact with earth and landing in the wilderness. That would also explain how you "blood beast" could impregnate your astronaut during the tremendous heat of reentry, but still be destroyed by fire. Even with these stupidities. The first half of your movie is pretty good. Had you spent some money on decent music, it would have been as good as a mediocre episode of "Outer Limits." But, once again, your writer describes Ed Nelson as the designer of the landing system, then gives him some stupid dialogue regarding magnetism. The biggest problem with the second half of "Night of the Blood Beast" is Michael Emmet. He's terrible as the doomed astronaut. You should have fired him on the spot and replaced him with Ed Nelson. You could have combined Nelson's responsibilities with those of John Dunlap and saved yourself the cost of one actor. I don't know if you actually PAID any of these people; but, at least you would saved the cost of catering three meals a day. I'd had also ditched the "scorched parrot" costume and spent the extra money using makeup to have the astronaut turn into the "blood beast". Maybe that was a little too close to "The Creeping Unknown" for you, but it would have helped the pace of the second half immensely. if you are going to have a "blood beast," wouldn't it be a good idea to show a little blood? Yeah, I know the title comes from the embryos in the astronaut's blood, but Kowalski could've done a LOT better job for you if he poured a little chocolate syrup around. After all, it LOOKS like blood in black and white. What've that cost you, maybe two bucks? I'd have also used some closeups. For some reason insipid dialogue and bad acting don't seem quite so bad in closeups. Look at almost 70s TV series and you'll see what I mean. Oh, in closing, Roger, a note to your writer. You can't use a fluoroscope to show some poor schmuck full of alien embryos when you DON'T HAVE ANY ELECTRICITY. Remember, you fried the generator in the first reel? Oh,and I almost forgot. Roger, couldn't you afford a fake knife? You know, the kind where the blade goes into the handle. I had one of those when I was 9, which also happens to be the year "Night of the Blood Beast" was made.It cost, maybe, another two bucks. I think I knew enough then to make you a better movie. I KNOW I know enough now to do so. So, Roger, if you decide to remake "Night of the Blood Beast," or if you are looking for a writer/director to work with you on SOME OTHER PROJECT, I'm your man. I'll work cheap, 'cause I'd really like to make a movie for you, Roger.<br /><br />I give "Night of the Blood Beast" a "3". SPECIAL NOTE: If you like to watch kitschy movies like "Night of the Blood Beast," the DVD I bought for $3.99 was very good quality. You can also get "Night of the Blood Beast" along with a lot of other terrible horror/scifi movies at places like Bestbuy for about $6.

Viewed this the other night on cable on-demand and thought, "this is the type of movie that might have starred Alec Guiness and Glynis Johns if it had been made in the late 50's". A farce in the English tradition. Alfred Molina and Brenda Blethyn are very sweet and sincere in their portrayals. Naomi Watts simply sizzles in a ditzy Jayne Mansfield-ish (if she could have acted) way. Rest of the cast have some great turns and bits. The Welsh landscape is delightful. An absurd premise, indeed and not at all believable, but that doesn't get in the way of enjoyment. Not a GREAT movie, mind you, but a truly fun watch. And Walken is at his wacky best. A joy to behold!

The Ruth Snyder - Judd Gray murder in 1927 inspired Ogden Nash to write a Broadway play called Machinal. More famously, it inspired James M. Cain to write two short novels which anyone who has actually reached the point where they are reading this review would be familiar with - Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice. Both became film noir classics of the 1940's, Double Indemnity being arguably the most perfect noir ever made. Some of the real-life elements of the Snyder-Gray story were captured by Cain - the old age and indifference of Albert Gray, Ruth's high sex drive, Ruth and Judd's passionate affair and complicity in the murder and that famous double indemnity insurance clause. Missing elements included the fact that the actual setting was a very urban Manhattan - Albert Snyder being a respected newspaper editor. The numerous incompetent and failed attempts were also ignored in order to cut to the chase.<br /><br />Cain's Double Indemnity was filmed perfectly by Billy Wilder - let's ignore Stanwyck's ridiculous wig as one of those interesting accidents of film lore! The Postman Always Rings Twice, however, was filmed thrice and Ossessione, an Italian version and Luchino Visconti's first film, was the first of three versions. Before commenting on it, I'll recommend the Lana Turner - John Garfield version of 1946 in its entirety and five minutes of the 1981 Jack Nicholson - Jessica Lange version for the great sex scene on the dining table.<br /><br />Ossessione is not as noirish as The Postman Always Rings Twice. It has a strong neo-realist look which makes it a great movie, but a lot of the essential noir elements are missing. It does not have low-key lighting and unconventional camera angles. The dialog is not hard-boiled and instead the film concentrates more on characterization. This is the longest version of the story and goes deeply into characterization. Its also a lot more sexual than the Lana Turner version. We have a very obvious adulterous relationship and Giovanna is very obviously a nymphomaniac. A new character is introduced into the story - La Spagnola - with very obvious homosexual overtones. There is also a small, but very well-played role for a dancer who moonlights as a prostitute.<br /><br />This is a far greater study of the working class than of crime. The audience really gets the feeling of poverty and grime. The drifter is a complete tramp, the wife is no Lana Turner and may even have been a prostitute before marriage. Her husband is an obscene capitalist - obese, rude and arrogant. I think the casting was brilliant for this film. My only beef is with the overlong running time. Everything is drawn out too long and it would have been more effective if it had been more economical. Nevertheless, fans of noir and realism will definitely like Ossessione, as I did.

if u haven't seen Vijay in "Ghillli", "Gilly" or "Ghillie". go watch it. wow. its devastatingly hilarious. i don't know if Dharani (the brilliant director) was being serious or not. There are tons of hot guys in this one, look out for someone who calls Velu "Maacha". The one with the brilliant braids, devastatingly hot. His teeth are brilliant as well. Vijay rocks. Trisha cries every 5 seconds. It is very deep. Watch it, you won't regret it. There are some great laughs in this one. If you don't speak Tamil, learn it. Then you will get all the inside jokes. It is one for the whole family, except maybe the violent bits should be skipped. I've seen this movie around eleven times .... and counting.<br /><br />Wow!

A very good offering from HBO. Traci Lords is becoming a much-better dramatic actress with each effort. I hope to see this attractive lady in more challenging roles in the future, instead of the "flighty" roles she has been stuck with in the past.

With Harry Callahan getting up in years, the inevitable `old man with a chip on his shoulder' story had to come into play eventually. Callahan, looking fragile sometimes and out of place, his demeanor still was unwavering. Thankfully, this film took some time off to develop a different type of story, one that might reinvent the Dirty Harry and the whole genre. While the film fell short in doing so, it was still an excellent addition to the series, even if it was getting a little out of place during a time of silly fashion trends and New Wave music.

Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.<br /><br />The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd. <br /><br />Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away.

Maggie Smith and Peter Ustinov as a very unlikely couple in a very not likable film at all.<br /><br />The film shows promise for Ustinov is released from prison for embezzling. He convinces Robert Morley to go away so that he can assume his identity and begin hacking away at computers at a very fancy firm run by Karl Malden and Bob Newhart, another unusual duo for films.<br /><br />Morley sounds just as he did in 1938's "Marie Antoinette." Perhaps, he needed to return to that genre.<br /><br />This film is ridiculous at best. Hard to believe that the following year, Maggie Smith totally changed her ways and gave a shattering Oscar performance in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie."<br /><br />Ms. Smith is made out here to be an apparent dumb-red head, but by film's end, she is the brains of the outfit. Too bad the writing didn't go the way with her.

I consider myself a casual fan of Dario Argento. For every really good flick by him (such as "Deep Red" and "Tenebre"), there seems to be one that's equally uninspired (his output since "Opera" has tended to disappoint). Still, there's no denying that when he's at his best, there are few horror directors who can top him. I consider "Opera" to be Argento's finest work.<br /><br />This is definitely the film where all of his trademarks are present. There's no well-developed characters and the plot makes very little sense once you begin to scrutinize it. Still, think of Argento as an European equivalent of Brian DePalma - the style is all that matters here, so much it becomes the substance. Typical to Argento, there's some beautifully filmed murder sequences. Those unfamiliar with the man's work may perceive that as a sadistic remark (and it may be, considering the often time misogyny of them), but its really true. Argento stages murder with an intricacy to eye-popping visual detail. He truly makes graphic violence an art form. Plus, his direction and the look of his films is impeccable.<br /><br />Fortunately, "Opera" is one of his most frightening products. Argento is the only director whom I feel booming rock music works well for horror sequences (when others attempt to pull it off, it comes across as cheesy). The acting varies, with Cristina Marsillach playing a beautiful and reasonably sympathetic but never particularly animate young opera performer. The rest of the actors are workmanlike and get the job done, but again, with Argento, the acting is never the point. Its the beautiful colors, the terrifying violence, and the overall fever dream / nightmare atmosphere. (9/10)

Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.

I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.<br /><br />The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.<br /><br />Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.<br /><br />The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.<br /><br />The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.<br /><br />This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.<br /><br />Go see it, if you get the chance.

The movie starts with a board meeting at a major advertising agency. Putney Swope is on the board for no other reason than the fact that he is black, and the agency needs a "token" on the board. Swope is ignoring the meeting, reading Jet magazine at the big table, and everybody is ignoring Swope... Suddenly, the CEO croaks on the spot. No time is wasted. A janitor is called to haul off the corpse, and the board immediately and unceremoniously tackles the business of electing a new CEO. And as the votes are tallied one by one, the tension is built up and then finally snapped in a hilariously ironic climax to the vote, that gives the viewer a delicious dish of logical implications to savor for the rest of the movie. If you've ever talked back to some stupid television commercial, you'll like seeing this movie. Too bad there don't seem to be any real Putney Swopes in the world.

"A Guy Thing" may not be a classic, but it sure is a good, funny comedy. The plot focuses on Paul (Jason Lee), who wakes up the morning after his bachelor party with no memory and Becky (Julia Stiles) lying naked in his bed. Before he can figure out what happened, he rushes Becky out of his apartment because his fiance Karen (Selma Blair) is coming. After that, as you could imagine, chaos ensues.<br /><br />Almost every single scene in "A Guy Thing" delivers loud laughs. The funniest moments come from when Paul imagines what could happen if he tells Karen. Selma Blair is a truly talented comedian, and the worst thing about this film is that she goes underused. Although, she turns out to be more funny than Stiles' character, who actually isn't that interesting. Of course, not every comedy is perfect.<br /><br />As I said, "A Guy Thing" is no classic, but it's not bad either, 7/10.

This movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th. The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp. He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off). The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims. Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son. Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute. He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.<br /><br />This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers.

Yikes. This is pretty bad. The play isn't great to begin with, and the decision to transfer it to film does it no favours - especially as Peploe doesn't decide how she wants to treat the material's theatrical origins (we get occasional glances of an observing theatre audience etc.) and has decided to go with a jumpy editing style that is intended to keep reminding you that you're watching a film, whereas in fact it only serves to remind you that you are watching a very poor film by a director who is overwhelmed by her material. Mira Sorvino's central performance is breath-takingly poor: stage-y and plummy, it's as if she's playing the part via Helena Bonham-Carter's Merchant Ivory oeuvre. Only Fiona Shaw delivers a performance of note - and it may be that her theatrical pedigree means that she is best able to handle the material - but it's hard to watch a film for one performance alone, even if that performance is as light, truthful and entire as Shaw's. Ben Kingsley turns in an average and disengaged turn, and Diana Rigg's daughter, Rachel Stirling plays her supporting role as just that. Sadly, none of Bertolucci's magic has rubbed off on his wife if this film is to be the evidence.

Elvis Presley plays a "half-breed" Native American ("Indian") who has to defend his reservation from nasty business tycoons. Everyone likes to get drunk, fight, and make children. Fighting, wrestling, and "punching out" each other replace the stereotypical hand-raised expression "How"?<br /><br />Although he does have make-up on, it's obvious Elvis is healthier than he appeared in prior films; possibly, he was getting ready for his famous "comeback". It couldn't have been because this movie's script was anything to get excited about. Joan Blondell trying to seduce Elvis, and Burgess Meredith in "war paint", should be ashamed.<br /><br />The best song is "Stay Away" (actually, "Green Sleeves" with different lyrics). The most embarrassing song is Elvis' love song to the bull "Dominic". There are some surreal scenes, but it never becomes trippy enough to succeed in that genre; though, "Stay Away, Joe" might provide some laughs if you're in the right "mood".<br /><br />Otherwise, stay away. <br /><br />** Stay Away, Joe (1968) Peter Tewksbury ~ Elvis Presley, Burgess Meredith, Joan Blondell

I am wanting to make a "Holmes with Doors" pun but I can't quite string it all together. Suitably grubby and over edited WONDERLAND gives Kilmer a role that channels Morrison at the same time....but how coy is this film about the famous 14 inches! Australian crime films flash it all the time and skip the graphic violence instead.....as someone famous said once about US cinema double standards: "kiss a breast and it's an X, stab it and its an action PG 13"... WONDERLAND is 14 minutes too long too, and at the end the tawdry spiral we were all glad to escape the cinema. How many films called WONDERLAND are we going to get? There must be six in the last decade. The pixilated violence and muted color sets the seedy tone but the wobble-cam gets tiresome, as if we are gawking at their nostrils all the time. Taking a few cues form THE DOORS and TAXI DRIVER it all becomes forgettable the next day.

Chan-wook Park, you have to hand it to the guy. In my eyes, he's not only a brilliant director but a brilliant director who can turn his hand to any genre and often provides something refreshing yet still ultimately satisfying.<br /><br />Thirst is, essentially, a vampire tale but one that plays fast and loose with some of the "rules" of the subgenre. Kang-ho Song plays Father Sang-hyeon, a man who unselfishly gives himself over to a research program and then unselfishly kind of catches the disease they are trying to cure, dies and comes back. All thanks to the blood he was transfused with. Being the only one out of five hundred to survive, he becomes quite the celebrity to those who know him and all he wants is to get back to normal. Normal, however, now involves being able to leap great distances without injury, wanting to drink blood and getting severely hot under the collar when rays of sun get on his skin. It's not long before he's living with a rather dysfunctional family unit who knew him in his childhood and while he hides his new, strange lifestyle he finds himself drawn into a complex love triangle, becoming more acceptable of darker thoughts and sliding down a slippery slope that could lead him from man to beast to monster.<br /><br />Deftly blending a number of genres, Park's movie felt much fresher and more original to me than Let The Right One In (to use a recent example) and genuinely impressed me with it's approach to material that could easily have felt as well-worn and rehashed as any number of other vampire movies we've seen over the years. It's a mixture of horror, melodrama and comedy while also pondering ideas such as strength of faith, the power over life and death, the downside of immortality, etc, etc.<br /><br />Some people have complained that this genre-blending approach weakens the movie but I personally found that it was a lively, entertaining and always enjoyable movie helped by a great central performance from Song as the tortured priest and fantastic turns from a supporting cast with no weak links. Many characters get to move through a range of emotions and all do so with skill and believability, especially the young woman (played by OK-vin Kim) who becomes the object of the priest's love, lust and affection.<br /><br />Fans of Asian cinema (and Park in particular) and also fans of Poe's "The Tell-tale Heart" (watch and learn) should lap this up, it's yet another classy movie from a man who seems to take everything in his stride and always manages to put out nothing less than solid entertainment.<br /><br />See this if you like: Cronos, Near Dark, Dellamorte Dellamore AKA Cemetery Man.

"The Gingerbread Man is the first thriller I've ever done!" – Robert Altman <br /><br />In 1955 Charles Laughton directed "The Night of the Hunter", a spooky slice of Southern Gothic in which Robert Mitchum plays a scary serial killer. One of the film's more famous sequences consists of two kids escaping from Mitchum on a rowboat, the kids frantically paddling whilst Mitchum wades after them like a monster. <br /><br />Seven years later Mitchum played an equally spooky killer in "Cape Fear", another film set in the American South. That film featured a local attorney trying to protect his family and likewise ended with Mitchum terrorising folks on a boat. In 1991 Martin Scorsese, trying to branch out and tackle something more mainstream, remade "Cape Fear", boat scene and all.<br /><br />Now we have Robert Altman's "The Gingerbread Man", another slice of small town Southern Gothic. Altman says he consulted "The Night of the Hunter" for inspiration and tackled such a mainstream film purely because he wanted to "spread his wings and try a popcorn picture", but what he's secretly attempting to do here is deconstruct the canonical films of the Southern Gothic genre.<br /><br />So instead of a showdown on small boat, we get a showdown on a giant ship. Instead of two kids being kidnapped, we get two kids being safely returned to the police. Instead of money being hidden, we have money being readily given via a last will and testament. Instead of the righteous attorney of the 1961 film and the deplorable attorney of the 1991 remake, we get a rather three-dimensional lawyer in Kenneth Branagh. Instead of the monster chasing the family we get the hero chasing the bad guys. Instead of the monster breaking into the family's house boat, we have the hero hunting the monster on board the monster's "house ship". Similarly, instead of a murderous serial killer we get an innocent weirdo played by Robert Duvall. . .etc etc etc.<br /><br />Altman goes on and on, reversing everything just a little slightly, pulling at the edges and doing his own thing. His touch is most apparent during the film's first half-hour, the film existing in an uneasy space between conventional plot-driven movie storytelling and Altman's fondness for overlapping dialogue, casual narratives, prowling camera movement and the way that characters aren't so much introduced as they are simply part of what's going on.<br /><br />Still, despite Altman's best intentions, the film never rises above mediocrity. Altman's too bound to the conventions of the "thriller format" to do much damage, his style is too lethargic to generate tension and the film is simply not radical enough to counterpoint other canonical films in the genre. "Gingerbread Man" is thus too mainstream to work as a more pure Altman film and too Altman to work as a mainstream thriller.<br /><br />The film's not a complete waste, though. Robert Downey Junior, Kenneth Branagh and the usually intolerable Daryl Hannah, all turn in juicy performances. The film also has a nice atmosphere, set against a approaching hurricane, and the final act contains some interesting twists and turns. While it's not the complete disaster that Scorsese's "Cape Fear" was, the film still never amounts to anything special.<br /><br />7/10 – In the late 90s Altman made 3 successive films set in the American South: "Kansas City", "Gingerbread Man" and "Cookie's Fortune". Unlike "Gingerbread Man", both "Kansas City" and "Cookie's Fortune" tackle the genre on the broader, more looser canvases that Altman was most comfortable with. <br /><br />"Kansas City" is the more important of these two films, its hierarchies of class, politics and crime, and its desire to break radically away from typical gangster genre frameworks, would prove influential on all serious 21st century film crime writers (see, for example, "The Wire"). That said, "Cookie's Fortune", while a much slighter tale, is perhaps the better picture.<br /><br />Note: Altman claims that this is his first thriller, but he directed "Images", an art house thriller, in 1972.<br /><br />Worth one viewing.

With this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.

This is a love story set against the back drop of television news. The three main stars, William Hurt,Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks create a love triangle whilst working at the Washington bureau of a TV network.<br /><br />Tom Grunick(Hurt)is the handsome reporter who is being groomed to be a star.Jane (Hunter)is the producer who recognises that Tom lacks the intellectual gravitas to be a real journalist, but falls for him anyway.Aaron Altman(Brooks)is the man who shares her beliefs in journalistic standards is also the man who truly loves her.<br /><br />Holly Hunter was nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award ,but lost out to Cher(Moonstruck!).She was robbed! This is Hunter's film.Her character Jane is smart,ruthless and totally driven. She is also hilariously neurotic. Her performance is perfect.Just watch her face when she watches the tape of Tom's interview of a rape victim. The scales literally fall from her eyes.<br /><br />Wiliam Hurt's performance is less showy.He plays a man who is well aware that he is a himbo and a fraud,but is smart enough to know that his rise will be facilitated by people like Jane.He gives little hints of a man who is extremely calculating.<br /><br />The film comments on celebrity, journalism,integrity and the commercial pressures on news in a medium that is focused on the bottom line. It predicted that news would be dumbed down, that standards would slowly be lowered due to commercial pressures.<br /><br />Think about this:this film was released before the end of the Cold War and before rise of reality TV.Yet, it predicted the dumbing down of the news.Paris Hilton's release from jail was treated like a major news story! To see how prophetic this film is,just watch your evening news and note the set, the graphics and the presenters.Tom Grunick and his clones are well and truly alive!

Nice attempt to bring Shakespearian language alive in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the final result is dreadful. Futuristic Liverpool is not convincing at all; the budget was obviously not very big, but the production designer could have come up with a slightly more creative approach to the matter. Alex Cox has made some good films, e.g. Repo Man and Highway Patrol Man, but i really don't know what he was thinking here. Just an opinion.

I personally found this movie to be terrible, first it was hardly objective, and provided one side of the debate. The only people who were presented as the side saying he did exist being a bunch of people coming from a Billy Grahm Revival. Secondly it deviated heavily from its supposed topic did Jesus (Yeshua) exist, to talking about how violent Christianity is, and showing scenes from Mel Gibsons "The Passion". In the end it has the director con his former Principal of a Conservative Private School into being interviewed, and attempts to trap him about teaching the kids there faith. Oh and also the Techno Music just made the film harder to watch.

This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. What were they thinking. Stop preaching to me already! This is why all of us watch Walker Texas Ranger and wont admit it to our friends. Terrible acting and a extremely phony plot. While the movie is unfolding the story stops and the actors start preaching to the audience. The director somehow believed the two meshed well. It looked like crap! When I saw the title at my local blockbusters it looked interesting. Their should have been a warning on it saying it was religious instead of the false advertisement of an action / adventure. First time in a long time I stopped a movie and couldn't tolerate finishing it.

<br /><br />Once I ignored some of the implausibilities, this was actually a fairly decent horror/monster flick. So, I'll give some of the good points first: - the dragon was quite convincing, especially as she prowled through the tunnels looking for lunch (hint: she likes humans). - the action was fairly non stop, and, after a weak beginning, I got quite absorbed in the storyline. - sorry to say, I was kind of rooting for the dragon - she was probably the most convincing and consistent character in the movie.<br /><br />Now for the implausible stuff **maybe some spoilers**: - if you were hunting a fire-breathing dragon in 1100 AD, would you charge into its cave with a barrel of gunpowder under your arm? Duh. - a female character with an all-American name, blonde hair and obvious Slavic accent, trying to pretend she's Spanish? Huh? - a lead scientist whose Slavic accent you can cut with a knife, and he's supposedly born in Chicago, educated in USA? - a military helicopter pilot who does his own repairs, flies a huge transport copter with no other crew, and is an expert marksman and combat soldier to boot? OK. Uh huh. I won't even mention his giving 3 different call signs in 2 minutes while communicating with his base.<br /><br />It's still better than some of the Japanese monster flicks from the 60's, but not by much. If we're lucky, we won't see Dragon Fighter 2, though naturally the ending left that possibility wide open. Or, maybe, they'll hire a real director next time.<br /><br />In spite of everything, I gave this flick a 4 out of 10. Add 2 more if they rewrite the plot, and Dean Cain gets eaten in the first ten minutes. <grin>

We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that.<br /><br />This movie is very good. not just good but very good. The critics are a bunch of morons. Just because there is nudity and language they hated it. It was worth the price of ticket and that is all you can ask for. Is that not right? Every movie cannot be an academy award nominee. Sharon stone is gorgeous and does a great job in the movie and it mystifies me as to what in the hell the critics want

The film was apparently spawned from an idea one of the writers had when he 'saw' one of his creations in a supermarket. The inhabitants of Royston Vasey head into 'our' world to persuade the writers not to stop writing about them and thus destroy their world.<br /><br />If that sounds a bit too serious, don't be put off. Within the first few minutes we get: Bernice (the vile female vicar) letting rip at an unfortunate penitent during confession; Chinnery (the vet who inadvertently destroys every animal he touches) attempting to collect semen from a giraffe; Mickey (thick beyond belief) being, ah, thick; and Tubbs (inbred sister-wife and local shopkeeper) being sweet as ever - but still disgusting.<br /><br />Some of the regular characters are missing, but a new idea by the Gents introduces some 16th-Century characters - and we have the Gents themselves in the action too. If you're new to The League of Gentlemen, this is an easy introduction and a lot of fun. If you're a long-standing fan, this has everything you've come to expect - including the joys of Jeremy Dyson spotting.<br /><br />All told, it's got the same faintly surreal humour that's the hallmark of the series, plus some moments of quite touching 'introspection'. Herr Lipp, for example, maintains a gentle dignity on learning that he's regarded by his creators as a 'one-joke character'. While most of the characters stay as they are, some develop in unexpected ways that are perfectly natural when they happen.<br /><br />This film is a 'swan song' for Royston Vasey, but it's also a showcase for the Gents who prove that (gasp!) they can write other stuff - and it can be very funny. (But you knew that anyway.)

Um... Okay, I guess I get the whole shaky-cam, gorilla-style filming technique but unfortunately I think a gorilla could have made a better movie... This thing was just a complete mess from the get go. Bad acting, bad directing, bad story and horrific cinematography. How this piece of garbage was released I will never know, but it has and unfortunately I watched it. Filmed on location in Tennessee by the directing team of Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen (Harry and Lloyd), "Five Across The Eyes" I'm assuming is supposed to resemble a "Blair Witch" type film but falls short... Okay it nose dives off a cliff. I was actually embarrassed for these young women, whom I'm sure were promised Hollywood stardom, but ended up in this dung heap. The dialog is ridiculous, and actually aggravates you as you listen to it. How this is supposed to be a horror flick is another mystery, as there is nothing even remotely scary about it, except for the fact that I watched it... Try this one on for size: There is 5 of you and 1 of her, do the math and beat her ass... "The End". Saddly it went on (and on) for 95 more minutes of mind-numbing stupidity...<br /><br />I saw it for free, and wanted my money back.

Like for most women this movie is the ultimate chick-flick. With it's hot chemistry, sexy dance rountines and beaitiful songs, i mean timeless classic like (I've Had) The Time of My Life & the wonderful She's Like The Wind makes this movie. I adore Patrick Swayze in this movie and he shows he can sing and dance it's so hot. He sings "She's Like The Wind" in the movie. The chemistry between Swayze and co-star Jennifer Grey is amazing. I love all the dancing and everything that goes with it. But saying this Dirty Dancing 2: - Havana Nights is also great but Patrick Swayze scenes makes this. I love the songs, dancing and everything about it but it isn't Dirty Dancing. Like I said it's an amazing chick flick. Please let there be a 3rd because I love to see what happens with Patrick's character Johnny. Jennifer character could have been more sexy but hey Patrick makes up for that if you know what I mean!!! Great movie and I'm so pleased Billy Zane didn't win the movie role. I heard whispers he was meant for the role but they found out he couldn't dance.

I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.

i'll admit. i think Uma Thurman is the most beautiful woman on the planet and have made it a mission to see every movie she has been in (unfortunately that includes the horrible films Batman and robin, The Avengers) and this one.<br /><br />this has to rank as the worst movie i've ever seen. (yes it ranks even lower than The Avengers). everyone looks lost in it and it is incoherent beyond belief. <br /><br />even if you think Uma is a goddess like i do, PLEASE PLEASE don't subject yourself to this movie. you'll hate yourself the following morning for it.

This one is tough to watch -- as an earlier reviewer says. That is amazing considering the terrible films that came out right after WWII -- particularly the "liberation" of Dachau. It is clear that, as of the middle of the war, we knew exactly what was happening to the Jews. The sequence that shows a "transport" is vivid, almost as if based upon an actual newsreel (the Nazis liked to record their atrocities). Knox as the Nazi is brilliant. He charts the course of a Nazi career. That charting is particularly telling when contrasted with the reactions of other Germans, at first laughing at Hitler, then incredulous, and finally helpless. That contrast, however, permits us to believe in the "conversion" of one young Nazi officer to an anti-Nazi stance. That did happen, as witness the several attempts against Hitler, most notably the Staffenberg plot which occurred as this film was coming out. A strong film, effectively using flashbacks, accurately predicting the Nuremburg trails and others that would occur once the war ended.

9/10- 30 minutes of pure holiday terror. Okay, so it's not that scary. But it sure is fun.<br /><br />The Crypt Keeper (John Kassir) tales a tale of holiday FEAR, giving us all Christmas Goose... GosseBUMPS That is. Bwahahahahha. You should really be careful what you AXE Santa for. Have a Scary Christmas and a Happy New Fear. Okay I'll stop.<br /><br />Okay, so in the story, a greedy wife (Best screamer in the world, Mary Ellen Trainor) kills her husband (Marshall Bell, the coach who gets towel whipped to death in ANOES 2) for the money. BUT, her plan is ruined when a crazy killer dressed in a Santa suit (Larry "Dr. Giggles" Drake) comes her way.<br /><br />If you look it up on YouTube, you can watch it for free, but most of you have already seen this (my third viewing). But if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do.

I read that Jessie Matthews was approached and turned down co-starring with Fred Astaire in Damsel in Distress. Jessie Matthews in her prime never left her side of the pond to do any American musical films. IF they had teamed for this film it would have been a once in a lifetime event.<br /><br />It's a pity because Damsel in Distress has everything else going for it. Fred Astaire, story and adapted to screen by author P.G. Wodehouse, Burns&Allen for comedy, and songs by the Gershwin Brothers. In answer to the question posed by the Nice Work If You Can Get It, there isn't much you could ask more for this film.<br /><br />Except a leading lady. Though Ginger Rogers made several films away from Fred Astaire, Damsel in Distress is the only film Astaire made without Rogers while they were a team. Young Joan Fontaine was cast in this opposite Astaire.<br /><br />Her character has none of the bite that Ginger Rogers's parts do in these films. All she basically has to do is act sweet and demure. She also doesn't contribute anything musically. And if I had to rate all the dancing partners of Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine would come out at the bottom. The poor woman is just horrible in the Things Are Looking Up number. <br /><br />When she co-starred later on in a musical with Bing Crosby, The Emperor Waltz, it's no accident that Fontaine is given nothing musical to do.<br /><br />The version I have is a colorized one and in this case I think it actually did some good. The idyllic lush green English countryside of P.G. Wodehouse is really brought out in this VHS copy. Especially in that number I mentioned before with Astaire and Fontaine which does take place in the garden.<br /><br />Burns&Allen on the other hand as a couple of old vaudeville troopers complement Astaire in grand style in the Stiff Upper Lip number. The surreal fun-house sequence is marvelously staged.<br /><br />P.G. Wodehouse's aristocracy runs the gamut with Constance Collier at her haughty best and for once Montagu Love as Fontaine's father as a nice man on film.<br /><br />The biggest hit out of A Damsel in Distress is A Foggy Day maybe the best known song about the British capital city since London Bridge Is Falling Down. Done in the best simple elegant manner by Fred Astaire, it's one of those songs that will endure as long as London endures and even after.<br /><br />Overlooking the young and inexperienced Joan Fontaine, A Damsel in Distress rates as a classic, classic score, classic dancing, classic comedy. Who could ask for anything more?

The weakness of this comes from the confusing storytelling, plots often coming out of nowhere. But it really didn't matter because I still enjoyed it to it's full length. Once you actually accept that this movies not to be taken too seriously then you'll enjoy it even more. It's basically a love story, a confusing one at first but as it evolves it really is something worthwhile. Sure it's been done so many times before but the complicated version of this is quite inspiring and touching.<br /><br />The over the top fantasy and cgi was overwhelming at first but I still enjoyed its purpose. And people quit whining about how it borrowed from other movies!! Guess what we know!! And it doesn't really matter because its purpose was to humour and entertain. Sometimes people has to stop being so critical and think for a moment before they start yapping about. Comparing this to Hollywood standards is utterly stupid and ignorant, It's a totally different style and target audience. As far as I'm concerned some the best films I've feasted my eyes upon are from eastern producers and directors. There's your Police story 4,shaolin soccer, kung fu hustle, dragon tiger gate, fist of legend, hero, crouching tiger etc...I for one like this movie and haling from the Philippines, US, england, Libya and now Australia, I'll always be interested in these types of films. Now try and judge my perception, but I warn you I do see things from from the point of view of those 5 countries I've lived in. So you better be as experienced and open minded.

As a history of Custer, this insn't even close (Custer dies to help the indians? I am sure the other members of the 7th Cav weren't consulted in THAT decision.) But as a western, this is fun. Flynn looks, and acts, the part of the dashing cavalier. And the "Garry Owen" is always nice to hear!

I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say "partly" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.<br /><br />This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film "Howl's Moving Castle". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.<br /><br />The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.<br /><br />Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.

Fay Grim is the continuation of a story begun ten years earlier with Hartley's Henry Fool. I haven't seen the earlier film, and I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I can only regard the current film on its own merits.<br /><br />For most people, Hal Hartley's style of film-making is something that you either like or you don't. His combination of action, drama, absurdity and dry, ironic humour really resonates with me, and Fay Grim is no exception. It has an air of sharply-written intelligent parody that had myself and many in the Melbourne International Film Festival audience laughing out loud. For the first half of the film it was relentless and delivered with deadpan straightness. It's a style of humour sadly lacking in cinemas and a welcome relief to the mindless teen comedies that Hollywood pumps out like pancakes.<br /><br />During the second half of the film, the humour starts to thin as the film morphs into an international espionage/conspiracy thriller. Whether this was Hartley's intention or whether he ran out of ideas is not clear, but I think a bit of editing or re-writing to cut fifteen minutes off the film would have maintained the film's original momentum.<br /><br />The performances were generally good, particularly Parker Posey and Jeff Goldblum, who had the most screen time. Saffron Burrows, James Urbaniak, Carl Montgomery and Elina Löwensohn all played good support roles. The film's visuals were nice (set in New York, Paris, Berlin and Istanbul) and the music (also by Hartley) was good without being intrusive. The film is well-written and I enjoyed this it immensely. If you like Hartley's earlier work, you'll probably like this.

"The Notorious Bettie Page" is about a woman who always wanted to be an actress but instead became one of the most famous pin up girls in the history of America. Bettie Page played by Gretchen Mol was one of the first sex icons in America. The type of modeling Bettie Page took part in included nudity and bondage which lead to a U.S Senate investigation in the 1950s.<br /><br />Walking out of the film, all I could think about was how far we have come in terms of pornography since the 1950s. You can go on the internet now and find some of most disturbing and shocking images ever shot, that the footage questioned in "The Notorious Bettie Page" seems almost childlike and innocent. Most of the footage including the bondage did not feature nudity when Bettie Page was involved yet today we have sick images where we can see women having sex with animals. I find that maybe the envelope has been pushed a little too far since the 1950s because looking at this movie in terms of today's pornography, it was very tastefully done.<br /><br />To be honest, I was pretty impressed with "The Notorious Bettie Page," I found the film to be very well done and interesting. The movie is exactly what the trailer leads you to believe it will be and is a very interesting look at one of the first female sex icons in America. Gretchen Mol looks just like Bettie Page and gives a very fine performance. I also thought that since the movie was shot in black and white it made the film seem realistic because it made the audience believe they were watching a film created in the late 1950s.<br /><br />My only complaint about the film was the running time, there seemed to be a few scenes that were cut and seemed to be a little shorter than they should have been. I looked this up and it seems that 10 minutes was cut from the film since its original showing at the Toronto Film Festival. Also the ending was pretty tame and I was expecting a little more from it or maybe some paragraphs to come on the screen to tell the audience more about Bettie Page's life where the film left off. Those are my only two complaints about the film other than that the directing was solid, the acting was great especially Gretchen, and the writing was good.<br /><br />Mary Harron, who directed "American Psycho", which is one of my favorite films, is the director and writer of "The Notorious Bettie Page." I feel that Mary is a very talented director who knows how to create a setting and create great movies based on characters because like "Psycho", Bettie Page is a character study and a fine one at that. Harron captures the 40s and 50s with ease as well as all the characters. She is a very talented director who I hope will be around for many years to come.<br /><br />Bottom Line: "The Notorious Bettie Page" is definitely worth a look. It's a very interesting story that shows how far America, as well as the world, has come in terms of pornography. The film also provides a fine performance by Gretchen Mol who literally nails the role of Bettie Page on the head. And top it off with a talented director who was able to capture the look and feel of a previous era and you have a good movie on your hands. Sadly, this film is probably going to flop since not many besides people who grew up in this era will show interest in the film but I think it's worth checking out.<br /><br />MovieManMenzel's final rating for "The Notorious Bettie Page" is a 8/10. It's an interesting character study about one of the most famous pin up girls and sex icons in American history.

This movie embodies the soul of modern "elite" foodculture, even though the movie is 17 years old. The standing principle in the movie is: Food is more than just nourishing matter. It is also a powerful symbol and a medium for culture itself. The main characters literally get drunk on the finest wine and food, become inspired by idealistic thoughts and culture, as they let go of their puritanism and passion-denying table manners. Karen Blixens shortstory makes use of the difference between North Europe and South Europe, to point out their inherently different approaches to food. As the strict and and rather dull scandinavians get infused with "Eros" from south, the party gets going. So what are you waiting for? Go watch it.....again!

Tintin was one of my favorite heroes as a kid. I used to borrow the books from the school library every chance I got. My favorite one was "The Red Sea Sharks" - so much action and humor.<br /><br />This documentary was a brilliant exposition of the background story of Herge and his development of Tintin. The film-maker's personal experience in interviewing Herge and the story of his relationship with the artist who was the inspiration for the Chan character was very moving.<br /><br />A great documentary of a very talented and well-loved artist. A great example of someone who has become internationally renown, and has brought joy of millions of children (and the young at heart) all over the world.

Former private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the film noir genre, without enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in the screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his "Chandler" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this '70s variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to any kind of a boil. *1/2 from ****

I like this movie and have watched my copy twice since acquiring it a few weeks ago. But you have to view it in the right context.<br /><br />I haven't checked on the dates, but I bet this movie came out after and certainly around the same time as the Collier and Walt Disney popularisations of the vision of spaceflight being promoted by W.Von Braun. This is reflected in the attempt to seem factually correct and scientific. However, whilst certain ideas are put across ( step boosters, for example ) roughly correctly, other things are hilariously wrong.<br /><br />For example, we are told that a rocket ascends to an altitude and then turns ninety degrees to enter space...like reaching the top of a flight of stairs and turning onto the landing! Then we are told that by turning in the direction of the Earths rotation the total velocity of the ship is increased accordingly.<br /><br />This is an hilarious misunderstanding of what really happens. Most space launch centres are located as near the equator as possible where the Earth and anything on its surface is rotating at roughly a thousand miles per hour, including any rocket departing to space, in an Eastward direction ( the same as the rotation of the planet ). Of course, if the ship turned to travel westwards once in space, its speed in relation to the surface of the Earth would be greater, but it would add nothing to the actual velocity of the vehicle. Decsribed in this movie as "air speed"! <br /><br />Similarly, we are told that the travellers only feel free-fall, or "weightlessness" when they reach some thousands of miles from the Earth, outside of the planets gravitational field. Again, comically incorrect. Most crewed spacecraft travel no higher than a couple of hundred miles up, but as long as they ( and, their contents, including crew ) are travelling at an adequate velocity that their momentum in an outward direction balances the pull of gravity inwards, they will orbit in free-fall. Of course, travel far enough from Earth and even a slow object will coast outside the Earths gravity well, but in order to leave Earth orbit, outwards ( towards the Moon for example ) requires the attainment of "escape velocity", around twenty one thousand miles per hour. So the vehicle will have already attained "orbital velocity" ( and "weightlessness" ) by definition.<br /><br />But the movie has vastly more hilarious stuff than this. Someone decided it would be more fun if they missed the moon due to a technical problem, fell asleep for a few days and then woke up to find they had accidentally gone to Mars! The captain then ruminates to the effect that this must have been divine intervention! At which point, any pretence to being scientific is torn into little pieces like confetti and thrown upon the wind amid the merry dance of an increasingly barmy plot.<br /><br />The strength of a film like this in fact is in illustrating "how far we've come". Not least in attitudes to women. The patronising drivel heaped upon the female crew-member is both hilarious and also shocking.To think that such attitudes were so recently "normal".<br /><br />As I said at the start, I find this film very entertaining, as a late night, lights out romp through the romance of travel in outer space, from the perspective of the days before it had actually happened. An antidote to the cold routine of spaceflight as it has now become in the Twenty First Century.<br /><br />I won't reveal the ending. It is both brave and shocking for a movie of this vintage and character.

It has started quietly. If your are looking for an action-packed movie this is absolutely not the right choice. All characters are slowly depicted on the scene. Stroke after stroke on the scene canvas. None can take away his hands to the priest and so the sisters lifespan devotion can only remain into the village. Philippa and Martina know their destiny, belong only to the village. So when you understand that, you are on the movie scene, in the village that becomes the whole known world in that time. When, no technology can let you imagine anything else than the campaign, the village, the sea. You feel the rhythm of that ancient village's life. Watching the movie in a cold snowy late afternoon can cause you to approach this evening dinner with some sumptuous expectations ...<br /><br />The final sentence that give a title to Babette's sacrifice far from Paris: An artist is never poor.<br /><br />Superb photography. Many situations depict portraits and landscapes as they were styled on canvas there, in Jutland, in 18th century.

For months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media, so I patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. After it was over I had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the VCR for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. It essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. With the possible exception of Amanda Peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is Amanda Peet) you cannot stand any of them. The film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric, moronic, and crude. The only slightly amusing character is Eric, whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. The final twist, designed to make you laugh at the three main characters, only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards Peet. All in all, only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor.

The Chasers War On Everything. 5 words that I love to watch. The chasers war on everything is an excellent Australian comedy. As the name suggests they wage war on everything. They seem to love hitting the politions most of all.<br /><br />The Chaser is one of the best comedies I have seen and is the top of the line in Australia. It is on the Australian Broadcasting Corparation (ABC) which is where some of the best comedies are.<br /><br />It has won the Australian Film Industry (AFI) awards but did not win the best comedy at the logies. <br /><br />Last Year (2006) the chaser was aired on ABC on Friday nights when everyone was out so no one could watch it. Well they have been moved to Wednesday nights at 9pm (a heaps better timeslot) and the best thing is if I miss an episode or even just want to see it again i can download it from www.ABC.net.au/chaser.

Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.<br /><br />To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.<br /><br />Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.<br /><br />I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest!

Things to Come is an historic film. Along with Metropolis (1927), it stands as one of the first great science fiction spectacles. It is also one of the first doomsday movies. It is remarkable how the filmmakers predict the start of the Second World War within a year, and even, in a subtle way, the year it would end in the real world. But then the film departs from reality, depicting a world ravaged by war (only substitute poison gas for nuclear weapons which of course did not exist in 1936).<br /><br />The last half hour of the film is an incredible sight, making groundbreaking use of models and matte paintings -- later to become staples of the science fiction genre. It is sad that, after Things to Come, Sci-fi would become identified with cheaply made b-movies, a stereotype that wouldn't be broken until 2001:A Space Odyssey more than 30 years later. If they'd stuck with the quality of the effects in this film, things would have been very different in Hollywood. <br /><br />Raymond Massey and some of his co-stars play multiple roles in this film, to good effect. Massey plays a great "Doctor Who"-like role as a pilot from an advanced (for 1970) civilization who tries to win over the populace of a devastated country ruled by a simple-minded warlord (a very effective performance by Ralph Richardson). Ultimately, the storyline covers 100 years. But that's a big problem with this film -- there really isn't a cohesive storyline.<br /><br />Perhaps in such an episodic film -- somewhat reminiscent of Intolerance, actually -- it's hard to have a conventional plot, but I felt more could have been made of the material, and although the visuals in the final third of the picture are indeed stunning and worth the price of admission ... the plot is nonexistent and the movie itself suddenly ends just as it is getting interesting. Maybe the producers were thinking of another future sci-fi innovation: a sequel?<br /><br />Things to Come is a film every serious sci-fi buff should see at least once. Unlike Metropolis, however, it might not bear repeated viewings.

Bend it like Beckham is packed with intriguing scenes yet has an overall predictable stroy line. It is about a girl called Jess who is trying to achieve her life long dream to become a famous soccer player and finally gets the chance when offered a position on a local team. there are so many boundaries and limits that she faces which hold her back yet she is still determined and strives. i would recommend it for anyone who likes a nice light movie and wants to get inspired by what people can achieve. The song choices are really good, 'hush my child, just move on up...to your destination and you make boundaries and complications.' Anyway hope that was at help to your needs in a review. Bend it like Beckham great flick

Six degrees had me hooked. I looked forward to it coming on and was totally disappointed when Men in Trees replaced it's time spot. I thought it was just on hiatus and would be back early in 2007. What happened? All my friends were really surprised it ended. We could relate to the characters who had real problems. We talked about each episode and had our favorite characters. There wasn't anybody on the show I didn't like and felt the acting was superb. I alway like seeing programs being taped in cities where you can identify the local areas. I for one would like to protest the canceling of this show and ask you to bring it back and give it another chance. Give it a good time slot, don't keep moving it from this day to that day and advertise it so people will know it is on.

I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!<br /><br />However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.<br /><br />1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously.

Anytime I'm not giving 150% to my dreams or my goals I think of Mark Borchardt, the real-life subject of "American Movie". Mark's dogged persistence at having his first feature film produced and shot is so captivating that it will have you laughing, shaking your head with sadness and rooting for him.<br /><br />I haven't seen a documentary this honest since the movie on R. Crumb. The supporting "cast" (Mark's real-life family and friends) are all great. Give this movie a chance and you'll see a great film and a wonderful portrait of the stuff that the American dream is made of.

It's really too bad that John Candy wasted his skills on so many horrible films (Delirious, Wagons East, Who's Harry Crumb?, etc.. This one has maybe a few chuckles, but it's mostly just really bad one-liners and dumb physical stuff. Let's honor this comedian's memory by remembering things like Planes, Trains & Automobiles and Uncle Buck.

This anime recounts the tale of the Battle for Mamodo King. Every 1,000 years, 100 Mamado children are sent to Earth to fight to determine who will be their next king (in the original Japanese, the creatures are Mamono, which literally means magic/evil object). Each Mamado is paired with a Human partner, and given a magic spellbook. The Human can use this book to unleash incredible powers in the Mamodo, and when a Mamodo is defeated, their spellbook is engulfed in flames (alternately, a Mamdodo's book can be captured and burned directly). After that the Mamodo returns to the Mamodo world.<br /><br />The titular character is Zatch (Gash in Japan), a 6-year old mamodo with electric powers. He is paired with Kiyomaru Takamini, and 14-year old genius. Zatch is initially reluctant to fight, but learning that some Mamodo are evil and deciding the battle for king is wrong, he decided to fight to become a 'kind king'.<br /><br />Zatch Bell has drawn comparison to Pokemon, but a better comparison is to Digimon. Like Digimon, the Mamodo and Human have a one to one, symbiotic relationship. Also unlike Pokemon, both shows have an actual plot.<br /><br />Zatch Bell features character growth and evolving relationships, and some fairly adult story lines (like love vs racism; slavery; mind control; etc.). It even has some decent plot twists and mysteries.

This movie had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.<br /><br />Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.<br /><br />Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be "this" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.<br /><br />However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked it.

This film seems to be well remembered as the time Tom & Jerry signed a peace treaty. Things are idyllic for a time but, predictably, it goes sour. Probably the most memorable moment was the endless fight involving a pipe, a frying pan, and a baseball bat that the two plus Butch the dog engage in at the beginning and end of the short. I enjoyed one a bunch and you should try to catch it on Cartoon Network.

This movie is poorly conceived, poorly acted, and poorly written.<br /><br />Jon Heder is terribly annoying, and cannot escape the same Napolean Dynamite routine. Self-obsessed and ignorant.<br /><br />Furthermore, Diane Keaton plays the same manish, overly obsessed mother, who cares too much and yet not nearly enough about the lives of her children (see Because I Said So). <br /><br />Anna Faris, though i generally like her, plays a vapid idiot in this film as well.<br /><br />Jeff Daniels is passable but nothing special. <br /><br />Please, skip this film if you want to keep your soul.

Will Smith is perfectly endearing as the "Relationship Doctor," here to heal all your relationship woes.<br /><br />I expected this to be a standard RomCom with little to amuse. I'm happy to report that I was wrong. Will Smith is delightful and unexpectedly "fresh" in this Andy Tennant vehicle. Surrounded by a great supporting cast, an interesting story, and fed with witty dialog, I was thoroughly engaged.<br /><br />We found this one cute, quirky, and inspirational without being preachy.<br /><br />It rates a 7.4/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

I caught the first screening of Driving Lessons at the Tribeca Film Festival. Rupert Grint shows he can act past Harry Potter. Laura Linney is amazing as the overbearing mother. Julie Walters is hilarious as Dame Evie Walton, with a mouth worse than a sailor. I hope that this film is picked up by an American distributor so that everyone can see it. This film is not only about Driving Lessons, but life lessons. Ben (Rupert Grint) is torn between wanting to obey his overbearing mother and vicar father and wanting to live his own life. It's an amazing film, from an amazing director whose taken his own life and put it on the screen for everyone to see, and everyone who can, should.

I have to confess right off that I have never been a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. Indeed, from me he gets "no respect." I watched this only because my wife wanted to see it, and found exactly what I expected: a stupid story without any real humour. It's full of lame, crude jokes and a totally ridiculous plot revolving around a developer's (Dangerfield) plans to build a ski resort in Utah that just didn't capture my attention at all.<br /><br />In addition to Dangerfield the film starred a weak cast, including the likes of Andrew Dice Clay and the totally over the hill John Byner (I didn't even know he was still around until I saw his name in the credits for this.)<br /><br />This truly is a Dangerfield disaster.<br /><br />2/10

I'm a Christian, and I have watched pretty of Christian movies, but this one is too bad. They try to make this good, but it's too hard for them I think.<br /><br />- You can see the film is badly dubbed in many places. - You can almost think that the mainpersons in this film was the only ones left behind. I think there will be a lot more of them.<br /><br />- The quality is poor, and the acting could have been better too. The story is not so very bad, but could've been better. The only plus I give, is to the story in this film, but totally I can't rate it more than 3/10. Watch "Left Behind" instead!

This movie appears to have been an on the job training exercise for the Coppola family. It doesn't seem to know whether to be an "A" or a "B" western. I mean, the hero is called Hopalong Cassidy for God's sake. William Boyd must be spinning in his grave.<br /><br />All the "B" western cliches are here. The two-gun pearly toothed hero in the white hat with the trusty steed ("C'mon Thunder"), the all-in-black bearded villain, the heroine in distress, the rancher in trouble, the cowardly sheriff, over the top bad guys etc.<br /><br />The acting, with few exceptions, is strictly from the Yakima Canutt School of Acting. Chris Lybbert (who?) as the hero and Louis Schweibert (who?) as the villain look like they would have been more at home in a 30's Poverty Row quickie. The addition to the cast of veteran performers Martin Sheen, Robert Carradine, Clu Gulager and Will Hutchins helps a little, but they are not given enough to do to salvage this one.<br /><br />What was the point of the Martin Sheen/Robert Carradine framing sequences? Are we to believe that the Sheen character was a ghost? What was the purpose of the black gloves? It just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Being a great lover of westerns from all genres, I tried hard to find some redeeming qualities in this film. The cinematography was quite good and the settings looked very authentic. Aside from the hero and main villain, the other characters looked authentic.<br /><br />If the producers were going to resurrect the Hopalong Cassidy character, they might have given some thought to portraying him as he was originally written - a grizzled foul-mouthed ranch hand with a chip on his shoulder, the kind of part Lee Marvin would have excelled in.<br /><br />What else can I say but..on Thunder, on big fellow.