Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

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.

In order to avoid confusion, let me clarify a couple of points: I am not a red neck. I am not even a moderate nor a conservative. Quite on the contrary, I am a radical: a Libertarian. I'm not a WASP either, I was not even born in the States.<br /><br />Jorge Luis Borges used to say that there are some kind of folk who do not feel poetry, and that these sad people usually earn their living teaching poetry. This movie was made by and for people who do not feel poetry, by and for show-offs; and I dare say, by and for people who have no sense of decency or, for that matter, respect for other people's life or death (especially when the victims are thought to be mostly 'bloody imperialists' killed in Yankee soil.) I even find the original marketing idea of the eleven episodes of eleven minutes, nine seconds and one frame as particularly hideous and repulsive. Just plain awful. Why didn't they assign a budget of as many dollars per episode as individuals were brutally murdered in the attack? The whole idea rests somewhere between mere stupidity and reckless fascism. Anybody who is serious about film-making (and serious about life and death) should have angrily declined to participate in this recollection of innuendoes and non-sequiturs. With two exceptions: the episode of Burkina Faso -- almost amusing --, and the one from India --which documents the story of a man who was unfairly and wrongly investigated in relation to the attack, on the basis that afterwards he didn't return home and that he was an American Muslim (and, truth be told, when the facts were known he was honored as a hero). All other nine episodes, essentially and extremely boring and emotionless, can be listed in two different categories:<br /><br />First: 'I don't care about the thousands of victims: Americans, foreigners, children, youngsters, adults, old-timers...' and can be resumed in pure boredom and lack of emotion. Makhmalbaf's (Iran); Lelouch's (France) – I'm afraid I'm going to commit an heresy since it's Lelouch's, but maybe, his episode might be considered built upon an idea which could be regarded as almost original; Tanovic's (Bosnia-Herzegovina); Gonzalez Inarritu's (Mexico); Gitaï's (Israel); Penn's (USA) <br /><br />Second: 'The bloody Yankees deserve it'. And can be resumed in frustration and hatred. Chahine (Egypt) vindicates the suicide bombers; Loach (UK) considers the 9/11 reckless attacks were some kind of punishment for the alleged support of the USA to the Chilean dictatorship headed by the serial-killer Augusto Pinochet, in fact someone should inform Mr. Loach that the victims of Pinochet were not related to Al-Qaida and that Chile is a South American country which sole existence Mr. Bin Laden should have ignored, he ought to be informed too that the American government sanctions against the Chilean dictatorship were harder than any other ciountrie's; and, Imamura (Japan) windingly points out that WWII is related the attack to the WTC. Imamura has at least been coherent in this: the supposed cause effect linking is entirely nonsensical, which plays well with his episode including a man who believes himself to be a snake. It pretends to be obscure. It is, instead, quite ludicrous.<br /><br />There's some kind of error shared by many, including some Americans, and it consists in the belief that this movie wasn't commercially screened in the States because of some kind of censorship. Nothing further from the truth: This movie wasn't screened in the States because it is a complete fiasco. A fiasco of the wackyest kind. Even in Buenos Aires, where Peronism and other forms of Fascism are nearest and dearest to the hearts of a sizable number of its inhabitants, and anti-Americanism is in vogue, the movie was screened in living rooms hurriedly converted into theaters, and was applauded by a very select public: The usual sad few who routinely lend their applause to other equally 'quaint' spectacles. Like the sight of a McDonald's fast-food restaurant or, perchance, an elderly Jew, being burnt to ashes.

Quite possibly one of the greatest wastes of celluloid of the past 100 years. Not only does it suffer from a painfully (and enormously predictable) disjointed script, but it's clearly a carbon-copy of Alien II. Within five minutes I had correctly predicted who would die and who wouldn't (and in which order). The special effects are laughable; there is a scene where one crew member is mauled (unconvincingly) by two Krites that look like a pair of teddy-bears, and the sparse humor is misplaced and dire. There are better things to do with a VCR remote than use it to watch this movie.

(Warning: spoilers! -- although it's hard to spoil this film by telling story details.)<br /><br />Eisenstein's black and white propaganda film is not for everyone. It's very old and it's, er, clumsy. What makes it great for me is the soundtrack, not the original but the updated soundtrack. Better still, the orchestral version Prokofiev created (my favorite performance is by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony).<br /><br />The film is actually funny in places. It's reminiscent of the old 'Midsummer Night's Dream'. Some of the outdoor scenes are quite magnificent. Some of the actors are also quite magnificent. (The actor who played Nevsky could have been a superstar today. Ditto for the warrior chick, Vasilisa -- definitely a rocker.) <br /><br />This may be the world's best collection, on film, of pithy Russian sayings (there are tons of them -- they make up the bulk of the spoken lines).<br /><br />The battle scenes actually look much more realistic than most high-budget Hollywood flix. These guys are as clumsy with their fighting as real peasants would be. The weapons look nasty, so the actors were probably trying to avoid actually wounding one another.<br /><br />The actor playing the German 'grand marshall' is trying *really* hard to look scary early in the film, but he looks like he was really a pussycat. After he's captured he looks *so* pathetic. (Speaks volumes about the intended audience, da?)<br /><br />A really humorous touch is that the German army brings an *organ* with it, played by a character in a black robe. Watch the Russians bring this guy down *while* he's playing.<br /><br />After the battle is over and almost all of the Germans are dead comes the best part of the film (and the music), the song sung to the dead soldiers who've died defending the motherland. This part is so sad it's almost an anti-war statement.<br /><br />Ten times as many men as ladies have rated this film. Wonder why?<br /><br />Warning: Joseph Stalin liked this film. Ironic -- he killed more Russians than anybody. 'Those who come to Russia carrying a sword will die by the sword'.

'The Secret Life' starts with the worst possible narrative intro: 'The crimes committed by Jeffrey Dahmer are too horrible to make a film about...'. Okay, so what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't bother to continue watching as the film won't be accurate or bloody, anyway? And they were right, too! The film isn't the least bit shocking and contains almost no blood or gore at all. Although I think that's mainly due to the low budget production values and not because of Dahmer's crimes being too horrific. Basically, 'The Secret Life: Jeffrey Dahmer' is just one sequence repeated over and over again. Young, pitiful and mentally confused Jeffrey picks up victims (always males, as he was a homosexual), kills them and then talks about how it wasn't his intention to hurt them and about how lonely he is. This gets boring really quick and even the admirable performance by unknown actor Carl Crew can't save this movie from being a total dud. Still, this version is much better than the pretentious and hopelessly muddled 'Dahmer' that got released in 2002.

Kaige succeeds in this beautifully done film. The pace matches the story, the direction is superb, and the casting/acting is perfect. The only draw back are one or two slight editing errors. I love film and I am a confessed stickler.

If you want to know the real story of the Wendigo, I suggest you pick up a copy of Algernon Blackwell's original story. This movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book.<br /><br />I loved the book when I read it as a kid (In 'Campfire Chillers' by E.M. Freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. I was so disappointed when I finally saw it. Another thing is that there were too many PC (Politically Correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. When the book was written PC didn't even exist.<br /><br />My suggestion is don't waste your time or money!! If you see it on the video store shelf LEAVE IT THERE.

The synopsis of this movie led me to believe that it would be a story of an unconventional woman challenging the conventions of the society in with she lives. I like strong female characters and expected a movie much along the lines of 'Chocolat' with a less fairy tale and more bite. What I got was a cast of despicable characters.<br /><br />For a character-driven movie to be effective, I need to feel a connection or compassion for the people. There was no one with whom I could relate in the movie. Grazia (Golino, whose work I admired in 'Rain Man') portrays a mentally ill, probably bipolar, female that is often rude, aggressive and violent. Her husband bickers and yells, when he is not hitting or slapping someone. The children are rude brats. They yell at each other and the females in the movie. They attack other children with no provocation. Violence begets violence. This seems to be an island of unfeeling, aggressive, violent and rude people all the way around.<br /><br />The direction is not compelling. There are intermixed scenes that attempt to be art, but instead bore the viewer. The location is exceptionally gorgeous, but even that fails to be captured to the degree that it could be on film.<br /><br />I would have to recommend that you stay away from this failure of a movie.

Just getting released from a six month drug rehabilitation program and having served his time for dealing cards in illegal gambling card games, Frankie Machine (Frank Sinatra) has high hopes for going clean and finding a new life as a big band drummer. However upon returning to his old crime-ridden Chicago neighborhood, he soon finds the pressure mounting from those around him, including his wheelchair-ridden wife Zosch (Eleanor Parker), to return to the old money-making 'Dealer' lifestyle that first got him started on the path of self-destruction that is being an heroin addict.<br /><br />It's very rare that a film has so many great character performances as this one does. Frank Sinatra is superb as Frankie Machine, and realistically portrays the symptoms of a drug addict going through withdrawal arguably better than anyone else had ever been done before him. Sinatra seems to possess a keen understanding and awareness of his character here and expresses the constant battle for control over his own life that is forever going on inside the heart of the man that is Frankie Machine. Parker as his crippled wife Zosch wants to possess Frankie forever, to have him 'deal' to make good money so as to take care of her and pay her ever-mounting medical bills. She seems terrified by anything she sees as a threat to her control over him, such as the freedom the life of a drummer might offer, or anything that might change the status quo between them.<br /><br />Onlooker Molly (Kim Novak), a girl who lives in the same building and seems to possess real, strong genuine feelings for Frankie, having no desire to control him but only to help him proves the best thing Frankie has going for him in the world if he can just stay straight long enough to wake up and realize it. Darren McGavin as the heroin drug peddler Louie however is always there just waiting in the wings knowing just the right buttons to push, just the thing to say, to get a former addict to revert back to that old habit, one profitable to Louie but deadly for the addict.<br /><br />The setting too seems to take on a life of its own, constantly dark, gritty, seedy and crime-ridden with nowhere near enough positive things to look forward to in life, a place where it's all too easy to escape via a bottle or drugs, a quick 'fix' that's truly no fix at all but only works to keep one in the dark away from the daylight and all the bright prospects the world might have to offer. It's a neat touch that when Frankie is on the right track, the setting always seems brighter than when he's headed down the wrong road. While some argue it is a bit dated, to me this is a gritty film featuring a realistic inner war within a man for control over his own fate, one that features very strong character performances by all involved. Given that, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM gets my highest possible recommendation.

Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess.

Alice enters in a world of wonder... but not the kind of wonder that you remember as a kid. The Mad Hatter, the White Rabbit, the Queen and others (even Tweedledee and Tweedledum) show Alice some things about her body -- and other people's bodies -- that might be quite wonderful. A tale of love and lust the likes you've never seen.<br /><br />Kristine DeBell appears as Alice. I must say, by 1970s standards, this may be the most attractive adult actress of her day. I believe this is her only film before moving on to mainstream work, but it was pretty much the best possible one she could have chosen (my love for all things Alice is no secret). Even better than 'Fairy Tales' (which isn't really pornography, so, much).<br /><br />The songs are cheesy, but fit the theme of the movie. One song, 'What's a Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?' was pretty funny, and the others had similar themes going. The trial towards the end was well scripted, and fit very nicely into the world of Alice. The logic and humor were definitely accounted for.<br /><br />What more can you say about a film like this? All I know is, for people who are used to adult films where it's just a 30-second lead-in to the sex, this one is going to overload you with plot and music. But, personally, I think there's something very special about this film and I hope it gets a nice DVD release with things touched up and special features (if that's even possible). I can see this being a cult film.

...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in 'Legally Blonde.' The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back.

Hilarious, laugh out loud moments ... and yet not a comedy. I particularly liked the planted gag of the ambulance soaking the 'filthy bum' who then shouts after them in anger 'you filthy bums', I mean wow, someone's online degree in literature is paying off! The worst script imaginable, with plot introductions in an instant, ridiculous movement in the story, ZERO character development (even between the characters who meet .. it's as if they all have known and trusted each other for years) dodgy voice over with added echo effects, and plot holes.. oh God are there plot holes!! To be honest I write this not even having watched the entire thing, but I certainly expect the last 30 mins or so to not exactly enhance the already pathetic attempt in cinema ... thank god we've got a good looking lead to somewhat make us forget that the film is a load of ... well ... use you imagination for the conclusion of that particular sentence!

I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.<br /><br />Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.<br /><br />Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances.

A very sweet movie about a young Chinese man enamored of western technology and an Englishman trying to make his fortune showing movies in China. It's a very interesting story that is presumably based on true events, although I'm assuming it's more fantasy than real. It's got a fairy tale quality you rarely get in real life, and it's also got 8 people credited for the script, so they must have been making up stuff right and left.<br /><br />This is a very likable movie that conveys how magical film was to people who had never seen it before. It is not an especially deep movie, touching briefly on the loss of tradition and the encroachment of western culture but mainly just being a pleasant little movie. It's actually a movie I enjoyed very much that is already beginning to disappear from my mind 15 minutes after seeing it. Light as a soufflé, but I enjoyed every minute.

First off, I have to say that I loved the book Animal Farm. I read it with my 9th grade class, and it was great. We also decided that watching the movie would be beneficial. The movie was so disappointing to me. The movie cuts out some characters, and misses a lot of the main points of the book. It skips around a lot, and doesn't explain anything in detail. If someone was watching this movie without having first read the book, they would be confused. The most disappointing thing in this movie to me, was the ending. The ending in the book was the most powerful, and in the movie, they changed it! It was supposed to be the pigs and men in an alliance and sort of 'melting' together, but instead, the movie made it seem like the animals were going to rebel against the pigs. To sum up, I don't think that this movie captured the real meaning that Orwell portrayed in his book.

Released on DVD in the UK as Axe, The Choke is a teen slasher that fails in pretty much every department: the story is almost non-existent, resulting in a film which comprises mostly of people wandering around a dark building; with the exception of two characters (who are quite obviously destined to be the film's survivors), everyone is thoroughly objectionable, meaning that the viewer couldn't care less when they get slaughtered; the deaths aren't gory enough (unless a brief shot of a pound of minced beef covered in fake blood turns your stomach); and the gratuitous sex scene features next to no nudity (an unforgivable mistake to make in a slasher flick!).<br /><br />The wafer-thin plot sees members of a punk band locked inside what appears to be the world's largest nightclub (there are endless abandoned corridors and rooms, unlike any club I've ever seen) where they are picked off by an unseen assailant. For a low budget effort, the production values are okay, and the cast are all seem to be fairly capable actors, but with not nearly enough genuine scares, a reluctance to get really messy (this is a slasher, so where's the graphic splatter?), way too much dreadful dialogue (particularly from the not-dead-soon-enough drummer) and some ill advised use of tacky video techniques in an attempt to add some style, the movie quickly becomes extremely boring.

Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). 'Strange Cargo' is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler?

I saw this Documentary at the Cannes Film Festival, in a small 200-seat Cinema at the top of the main building at the Cannes Film Festival.<br /><br />I absolutely was into it. I love the mix of awesomely made fictional scenes. It is amazing set-design. The scenes look really like they were filmed in 1920ies or 1930ies.<br /><br />And the music is so nice.<br /><br />I rate this experience 9/10.<br /><br />* spoilers ahead *<br /><br />The Documentary tells about awesome Blues-men, with black-and-white old-looking scenes of the black man playing the guitar and singing. It is really amazing. But this also mixes in new bands and that is maybe one thing I might dislike in this Documentary. It is the too abundant use of links to modern rock-bands playing those Blues songs in a modern way. I didn't really appreciate their trashed way of playing such awesome Blues songs. This is the same kind of un-perfect musical taste I found when watching Wim Wenders Buena Vista Social Club.<br /><br />The Documentary was such a standing-ovation at this first screening in the little cinema, that the next day this Documentary was shown for everyone and normal tourists on the beach of the Croisette at the open-air cinema. Though the sand, the quality of the projection and the bad quality of the sound probably made it a difficult experience to enjoy for the thousands of people who were sitting in the sand that night.

I really liked this film. All three stars(Connery,Fishburne and Underwood) give credible performances;and Harris is enjoyably over the top. The lighting and shot angles in some of Harris' scenes make his face look truly diabolical. The surprising turn of plot at the end makes it interesting. Not a great movie, but an enjoyable one. I gave it 7 of 10.

this is one of the finest movies i have ever seen....the stark scenery...the isolation...the ignorant bigoted people hiding behind their religion...a backdrop for some wordliness and sophistication...the acting is completely natural...but for me as a'foodie' the best is the actual choosing and preparation of the feast..i have spent time in paris and know the cuisine well...whether or not the cafe anglais really exists i don't know but i do know of similar establishments and babette's menu and choice of wines are authentic...and of course the end where despite themselves the perfect meal mellows them back to friendship is the only ending there could be..this is a 10 out of 10 film and should be seen by anyone with enough brain and taste to understand it

I grew up on Scooby Doo Where Are You, and I still love it. It is one of my favourite cartoons along with Darkwing Duck, Talespin, Peter Pan and the Pirates and Tom and Jerry. This show though is good for kids, the voices are good(Don Messick and Casey Kasem are perfect as Scooby and Shaggy), the theme tune is tolerable and it has some nice animation. However it is rather disappointing. I normally don't mind Scrappy, but when he appears to be like the main character, it gets annoying fast. Complete with the catchphrase Puppy Power, Scrappy is somewhat more annoying than usual. Also half the gang are missing after the first year, somehow it didn't feel like Scooby Doo. And the jokes and the story lines were in general lame and unoriginal, very little chasing monsters or unmasking the baddies. All in all, not as bad as Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, but this show is disappointing. 4/10 for the animation, voices, theme tune and the fact it is nice for kids. Bethany Cox

'Home Room' came as a total surprise. Not having a clue as to what it was all about, it paid off big time because it doesn't hold any punches and what we see is how lives are changed by the act of a disgruntled young man who decided to victimize his class mates, who are the innocent victims of his rash actions.<br /><br />Paul Ryan, the director, who is working and editing his own material, is a talented man who is rewarded by some amazing acting all around by his cast.<br /><br />Alicia Browning is an older girl who is trying to graduate high school. She has been away a couple of years and doesn't seem to be in the same wave length of the other students. For one, she is a rebel with a punk look, lots of makeup and a mouth that will cut anyone who dares to come near her orbit. Alicia was among the students in the home room where nine students have died, supposedly killed by her boyfriend. Alicia, we realize, is a wounded girl who has gone through a terrible ordeal in her life, but we are not given any clues to that effect.<br /><br />What follows is the aftermath of the tragedy, as it concentrates on a young woman who has survived it. Deanna Cartwright is a wealthy teen ager who shouldn't have been at the school, at all. When a ricochet bullet hit her, she is hospitalized with more than a wound. She is trying to get over this dark period in her mind but the nightmares don't let her forget.<br /><br />Alicia is made to go to the hospital by the school principal. Since she doesn't cooperate with the police, the head of the school wants her to see Deanna in her terrible state and perhaps she will soften up and will tell the authorities what she knows. Alicia dislikes Deanna, but in a matter of days, both girls will make peace. We don't realize until the last sequence what really happened that horrible day in school.<br /><br />Busy Phillips makes an excellent Alicia and Erika Christiansen is equally good as Deanna. Victor Garber, James Pinkins, Taylor Holland, and the rest of the cast play as an ensemble.<br /><br />The film has an intensity because it's not explicit in showing how the shootings occurred, which helps the tone that Mr. Ryan wanted to give this movie.

Seven Pounds, this was the movie where I was just convinced Will Smith is really going for the 'I'm going to make you cry' films. One thing I can give him a ton of credit for, the man can cry. My only thing is, as moving as the story is, Will Smith has proved time and time again that he can act, so why is he taking this extremely depressing story? But nevertheless it's still a good movie. I do have to admit it made me cry, but I felt that the stand out performance was Rosario Dawson, I absolutely love this girl, ever since I saw her in 25th Hour with Ed Norton, I knew this girl was going to go far. She's beautiful, charming, funny and talented, can't wait to see how much further her career is going to go. But her and Will Smith, not so sure if they had the great chemistry that the film needed that would've made this into a great film.<br /><br />Two years ago Tim Thomas was in a car crash, which was caused by him using his mobile phone; seven people died: six strangers and his fiancée. A year after the crash, and having quit his job as an aeronautical engineer, Tim donates a lung lobe to his brother, Ben, an IRS employee. Six months later he donates part of his liver to a child services worker named Holly. After that he begins searching for more candidates to receive donations. He finds George, a junior hockey coach, and donates a kidney to him, and then donates bone marrow to a young boy named Nicholas. Two weeks before he dies he contacts Holly and asks if she knows anyone who deserves help. She suggests Connie Tepos, who lives with an abusive boyfriend. Tim moves out of his house and into a local motel taking with him his pet box jellyfish. One night, after being beaten, Connie contacts Tim and he gives her the keys and deed to his beach house. She takes her two children and moves in to their new home. Having stolen his brother's credentials, and making himself known by his brother's name Ben, he checks out candidates for his two final donations. The first is Ezra Turner, a blind vegetarian meat salesman who plays the piano. Tim calls Ezra Turner and harasses him at work to check if he is quick to anger. Ezra remains calm and Tim decides he is worthy. He then contacts Emily Posa, a self-employed greeting card printer who has a heart condition and a rare blood type. He spends time with her, weeding her garden and fixing her rare Heidelberg printer. He begins to fall in love with her and decides that as her condition has worsened he needs to make his donation.<br /><br />Seven Pounds is a good film and no doubt worth a look, I would just recommend going for the rental vs. the theater. Will Smith pulls in a good performance, but not his best, just most of the film required him crying in every scene, but the last one with him is a doozy. But I loved the ending, it was beautiful and really made you appreciate life and to not take it for granted. There is still good people in this world and Ben's character reminds you to value life and to give to those who are in desperate need. Although he went a little far, but it was still a beautiful story.<br /><br />7/10

You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the 'camp' elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.

This is one of the best Non-English series I have seen. It weaves interesting single and double episodes of crime-solving together with a personal aspect that you just don't get in CSI. The individual characters all have personal lives that combine well with their day job and occasionally interfere. Additionally the characters all manage to naturally evolve throughout the episodes.<br /><br />The casting is superb and it was taped all over Denmark, giving a good example of the highlights that majestic country has to offer. Unfortunately only 32 episodes were made, however they are top-notch television. Here's hoping they consider making some more episodes of the same caliber.

Shahrukh Khan and Yash Chopra films have never disappointed. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is a romantic classic. Dil To Pagal Hai was fresh and perfect to watch. Mohabbatein remains as one of my favorite movies ever. And Veer-Zaara was magical. Darr, though not the best, is a romantic thriller that is different from the aforementioned movies, but definitely worth a watch. And SRK, who blew me away with an excellent performance in Baazigar, repeats a villain act. And this time he gets an experienced Juhi Chawla and Sunny Deol to support him.<br /><br />Before I comment on the acting, it is not just the acting, but the wonderful script that makes it worth a watch. It is the writing that compliments the great acting. The story is gripping, but the characterization is what stands out. The comedy track goes along well. But the movie has the tendency of shifting at romance too much. The viewer is bound to lose interest and you will make a couple of yawns. But the movie is still good.<br /><br />Shahrukh Khan is brilliant in his author backed role. Shahrukh Khan once again is sympathetic and cruel. You are bound to cry at the end. Juhi Chawla is decent. Her screams are bound to become annoying after a while. But in facial expression she is excellent. But her ending scene she is brilliant (though she was overshadowed by SRK). She has an author backed role that makes her very likable. Sunny Deol is adequate. His character was very likable, but too perfect. And it gets boring after a while. He does a good job though. Anupam Kher is really funny, but his role felt a little out of place. Tanvi Azmi supports well. <br /><br />The songs are enjoyable and come at the right time. Jadoo Teri Nazar (Magic At Your Sight) is my favorite song, and presentation is very 90's film like. Tu Mere Saamne (You are in Front of Me) and Likha Hai (Written Here) are nice love songs. Darwaza Band Kar Lo (Close the Door) is a decent love song also. The instrumental song is danced to perfection as well as the naughty wedding song Solah Button. The movie may not be perfect, but it is well worth your time especially if your favorite actor is in it.

Robert De Niro, Cuba Gooding Jr., Hal Holbrook, and all the rest of the actors and actresses in 'Men of Honour' have combined to make this a fine movie. Mark Isham wrote the filmscore, so you know the music is truly fine, too.<br /><br />But: After noticing a slew of goofs, loopholes, and over-dramatic heart-string pluckings right from the start, I had to make a vow to ignore them and sit back to enjoy the film. If you can do that, it _really_is_ good.<br /><br />The story of Carl Brashear, a true-to-life hero, is inspirational enough to last a lifetime. Look him up on the internet... The entire story is more amazing than the film, as the Director admitted in his comments. There were only three African-American U.S. Navy divers in World War II. However, none reached the status of U.S. Navy Master Diver. Carl Brashear was THE first African-American U.S. Navy Master Diver. AND he was the first amputee diver to ever be certified or recertified as a U.S. Navy diver. (Resounding Applause).<br /><br />On the negative side of the movie's ledger: Should I tell you of only one of the many 'loopholes'? Yeah, I'll mark this comment as containing 'spoilers' and do so... The early, pivotal scene where the helicopter hits the radio mast and sinks into the sea: They'd never have had the time to suit up a full Mark V diver, even if he were the legendary Master Chief Billy Sunday, in time to be only '... a couple of minutes late' saving the pilot.<br /><br />So, for loopholes, goofs, and over-dramatization, I derated 'Men of Honor' from a perfect 10 down to a 7.<br /><br />Will Hollywood EVER realize that the unalloyed truth is so much better that their over-dramatic approach to story-telling? I doubt it. Too bad!

i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.<br /><br />The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.<br /><br />The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.<br /><br />Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot.

The 'Trivia' page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to 'simplify the plot'. If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was 'simplified.'<br /><br />It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.<br /><br />I call this 'interesting' because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the '1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A.' theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this!

<br /><br />This is the best mock documentary of a dog show that I have seen in a long time. A very long time. Well lets face it,ever. Isn't that part of the charm ? The idea of actually going to the trouble to make a movie mocking a documentary about an event that most people would find odd in the first place. Even if there were no big laughs, one would still be smirking at the thought. Any movie that attempts something new scores highly in my proverbial book. I loved the dogs too !

Four young grade-school girls witness the murder of one of their classmates during what they thought was just an innocent game. The killer is a strange young boy named Milo Jeeder. Sixteen years later, the four survivors of the event re-unite under happier circumstances in the same town where it happened. They believe that Milo drowned in a river shortly after the murder, but soon learn that the demonic killer Milo has also returned, still a young boy, unchanged even after almost two decades.<br /><br />The cover for this movie makes it look really cool (yet I still expected a bad movie to come out of it). When I pop in the DVD into my player, the menu comes up and makes the film still look cool. Sadly, this movie isn't all that it got my excited about. The movie is your average attempt at a slasher film and when I say average, I mean just like all those other small-budget slasher movies that have never been welcomed with open arms into most members of the horror community (I'm talking about you, the horror fan). In other words, you could walk up to any horror fan and the majority of responses would be 'this sucks'.<br /><br />What mistakes did the movie make? First of all, the DVD cover art makes Milo look really dark but they blow it all by showing his face in the movie in many different scenes. He had the potential of being a very freaky character. Secondly, the back of the cover art tells Freddy, Jason, Chucky etc to pack their bags and move on out because Milo is so much better... why in the hell would you want to say something like that when it comes to a no-name, low-budget slasher film that has obviously failed? I mean, it just raises your expectations of the movie, making it harder to impress itself upon you. In a last ditch effort to attract attention, it says (in very big letters) 'From the creator of Anaconda'. Just shows you how low they're going to get as much attention as possible for the movie.<br /><br />The gore in the movie sucks, the director gives you some hideous angles when Milo attacks someone. The music isn't all that bad and I never once fell asleep during the movie (congratulations). I'm still trying to figure out what Milo actually is. My best bet would be that he is a zombie, if anyone else knows, tell me. Rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over thinking about it.

A true masterpiece of the Soviet cinematography. It's a shame for the Soviet Union that Samojlova was never given an opportunity to play in the Western movies -- but then again, she would probably never find herself there. In 'Letyat Zhuravli', she is unforgettable. This was one of the few movies where I was crying...<br /><br />In addition to Samojlova, Batalov and Merkurjev, who are top rate, it was a brilliant work of the director and the operator which made this movie an all-time classics world-wide. Just remember the scenes of piano music and proposal under the heavy German bombardment, or the death of Boris with a swirling sky above his head and his last visions appeared blurred in those skies. The very simple means -- but the great technique added to the emotional weight... Mind you, 20 years before 'The Star Wars', 41 years before 'Titanic', and with a Soviet budget.

I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.<br /><br />Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.

Edward Burtynsky is a Canadian photographer who makes art out of the least 'artful' objects imaginable. Everyday items such as crates, boxes, metal containers, etc. - items which most of us perceive as utilitarian at best and dismiss as being utterly without aesthetic merit - are instead converted into glorious objects d'art by Burtynsky's camera. He achieves this result by focusing on the recurring colors and geometric patterns that are apparently ever present in the industrialized world - for those perceptive enough to spot them, that is. Even heaps of compacted trash can become objects of beauty when seen through Burtynsky's lens (but didn't we already know that from 'Wall-E'?). He is particularly interested in photographing areas like mines and shipyards where Man has already made incursions into nature - which may explain why at times even the people in his pictures (i.e. the workers in those places), with their uniform clothing and robotic movements, become part of the industrial landscape.<br /><br />'Manufactured Landscapes,' a documentary about Burtynsky's work, has much of the feel of a 'Koyaanisqatsi' about it as it dazzles us with its richly variegated kaleidoscope of images and patterns. Indeed, director Jennifer Baichwal and cinematographer Peter Mettler capture the essence of the original photos in purely cinematic terms, as their own camera records Burtynsky and his assistant running photo shoots at a factory in China, a dockyard in Bangladesh, and the construction site at the massive Three Rivers Gorge Dam project in China. With their fluid camera-work, the filmmakers match point-for-point the beauty of Burtynsky's images. In fact, the movie opens with a stunning eight-minute-long tracking shot of a Chinese factory in which hundreds of similarly dressed workers toil away in perfectly symmetrical and color-coordinated rows.<br /><br />The movie does less well when Burtynsky gets around to articulating the 'themes' of his work, which, quite frankly, come out sounding confused, contradictory and decidedly half-baked at best. But it is as a purely aesthetic experience, highlighting image and form, that 'Manufactured Landscapes' resonates most. In the case of Burtynsky, perhaps, a picture really IS worth a thousand words.

There's something wonderful about a 'revenge' film. Everyone wakes up in the morning believing he/she is the star of 'the movie,' and that anyone who interferes with one's own personal agenda is in some way the enemy. Revenge plot films work particularly well if a person has low self-esteem. Rather than fighting back in the moment, the 'hero' draws upon built-up inner anxiety to engage in a single act of power in an attempt to restore equilibrium. Quite naturally, in the 'real world' this type of revenge seldom relieves the tension because life is not a movie; after the revenge is enacted the actions taken have their own consequences. A good revenge flick helps people ignore this bitter pill. In the movies the end credits roll and all responsibility resolved.<br /><br />'Swimming With Sharks' is advertised as a comedy, no doubt an act on the part of the producers to figure out just how to sell this oddity. It's dark, but it isn't dark comedy ('Company Of Men' and the works of Todd Solondz come much closer). Parts of the film are so brutal they pre-date the current 'torture-porn' genre everyone is so obsessed with ('Saw', 'Hostel'). There are some laughs. There are laughs in 'Saving Private Ryan' too, but it isn't labeled comedy.<br /><br />The intrinsic problem with this film is that it hasn't earned its revenge case. It is ostensibly about a young man who is abused by his boss and eventually takes his boss hostage to 'pay him back' for all the mistreatment. The hero (aptly named 'Guy') is an 'everyman' so vague we know literally nothing about him...what does he do with his spare time? Does he have friends/family? How did he get where he is? What are his interests (this becomes a running motif through the film, no doubt inspired by the film's author's own struggle...'What do you want?', the answer to which we are denied by a vague, cheat of an ending)? It's very difficult to care for such a character, even if acted well (even Tom Hanks becomes a creep in the wrong roll, such as 'Punchline'). Kevin Spacey as the boss, 'Buddy,' is supposed to be a monster but he's too charismatic as an actor. The best laughs came when he abused his assistant--he seemed almost as surprised as the audience probably is at what Guy will endure. When Kevin's character is being tortured, the view taken suddenly becomes empathy for him. Guy is suddenly filmed as a leering monster without rationality. At this point any message the author had has been lost; there's no 'hero' in this film, ergo, no reason to care at all.<br /><br />It's not a stretch to assume this story is based on the author's own troubled career in the film business. I worked for a similar boss and can vouch that it's not that far-fetched. I had similar wish-fulfillment fantasies at that time and thought that I was justified. I thought you could win over the most beautiful woman in the story (actually, the ONLY woman--there seem to be all of about four people in the universe of this film) just by being your eager, naive self, that eagerness won accolades and that a boss abused you because he was a mean person. Time and tide have revealed the truth that most 'monsters' are really just the demons of an individual's personal psyche and resentment is usually based in the self. As the film points out, if Guy was so unhappy he only had to leave. The film doesn't offer any denouement at all, 'surprise' ending notwithstanding. We still know nothing about the protagonists, we can't even be sure anything they said was based in fact and everyone magically gets to have his cake and eat it too. In short, there was no point to this story at all other than to point out that (shock!) the film business can be pretty brutal.<br /><br />There are plenty of good films that tell solid and satisfying revenge-style fantasies, both the feel-good variety ('9-to5,' 'Working Girl,' 'The Devil Wears Prada') and not so much ('War Of The Roses', the remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes'). This isn't one of them--despite a fun turn by Benicio Del Toro in the Emily Blunt role from 'Prada' and some interesting work by Spacey and Michelle Forbes, this is a frustrating, mean, confused and slightly dull creation of self- indulgence from a director who has, one hopes, 'worked it all out' by now...

Ignoring Rocky 3, this is easily Hulk Hogan's best film, and it still rates as one of the worst films ever. Hulk Hogan essentially plays Hulk Hogan, bringing his wrestling buddies in for a film, with all the cliches to go along with it - the crooked promoter, the unstoppable monster, the injured kid, the sexy woman and... 'dookie'.

I agree with all aforementioned comments. This show was a delight to watch. Funny, witty, terrific acting and zany sets. It's always a thrill to find a show that is smartly written, assumes the audience has brains and displays subtle humor. I would spend good, hard-earned cash money to see it again on DVD. And as long as we're requesting Smart Series That Never Got a Chance...How about DVD releases of Maximum Bob (another well written, odd duck show with a delightful cast of characters.) And add to the list...Middle Ages or Frank's Place. There has to a way to release these shows out of the vaults and into the hands of devoted fans and new audiences.

Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones.

This movie is about basically human relations, and the interaction between them. The main character is an old lady who at the twilight of her life starts a journey to her past, doing an analysis of how she lived her life. This journey is precipitated because of the sons economic crisis and his intentions to put her in a nursing home. It is a very honest look to some issues that we all ask ourselves at some point in life, and there is plenty of secondary ideas to discuss in this movie such as family legacy, real love, marriage or destiny. although this type of movie melodramas are nothing new, this one can be useful to watch it with family members to discuss some ideas. There is a good performance by the actors and the characters are very believable, but because of the time some characters are maybe not fully developed. I really recommend this movie for a quiet Saturday afternoon.

Looking at some of the negative posts, you really have to wonder what some people do for fun....<br /><br />I was lucky enough to see the film during its all-too-brief theatrical run. The audience laughed its heads off. I'm watching a tape of it as I type and it's still dang funny!<br /><br />It's also got a sweet side, with unexpected turns of genuine pathos. The late, great Royal Dano is especially effective as the lonely, down-on-his-luck farmer Wrenchmuller. Ariana Richards and J.J. Anderson are great as the lead kids. And the actors in the Martian suits, although limited to mime, do a great job<br /><br />Another thing to look for is the background details. The film is full of homages, pastiches, and references to other SF and fantasy films. Take a look at the Martian costumes next time. One of them is wearing a Marty McFly costume, another is a Ghostbuster, a third is in a House Atreides uniform, and a fourth is wearing a Last Starfighter flightsuit.

I had heard about 'gaming' and 'Dungeons and Dragons' before, but I had know idea it could be like what I saw in the 'Gamers: Dorkness Rising.' These guys are so funny and fun to watch. Especially the guy who plays the 'bard' or 'minstrel' or whatever, he has a gift for physical comedy and timing. There is so much background humor and energy in some of the scenes that make you really think that at least some of it was improvised there on set. The special effects needed to be worked on a bit, but I saw it at a convention last year and thats one of the things they said they were going to redo and make better, so it's probably wicked now!

I have grown up with Scooby doo all my life, My dad grew up with scooby doo. We have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself Shaggy and Scooby get a clue. What planet are Warner Bros on allowing this shambles to air. The characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. The story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are Scooby Doo fans too). Scooby and Shaggy just aren't!!!!! if anyone but Casey Kasem does the voice of Shaggy it just isn't gonna work folks!!!! trust me.<br /><br />This program was disgraceful. What's New Scooby Doo is much better. Why change a winning format. Bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true Scooby

Oh, the sixties. There were some interesting films. I was more of a movie goer then. I now enjoy renting movies and relaxing in my home rather than going to the theater. I also saw this short film, ' The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle'. I have been searching for this film for years. It was truly inspiring. Surprisingly, I was finally able to gather more information from your site. Thank You........ I'm surprised to find out that this short film was an opening for a Disney picture. I too did not remember the Disney film. I did not even remember that it was an opening film for Disney. I truly wish they would show this on TV sometime. I wonder if Disey holds the rights to this film? Is it available on DVD? This is a must see for all generations!!!

Good Lord... How this ended up in our DVD player I'll never know...my wife thought it was a new release she'd missed somehow...Nevermind it's a couple of years old and in Danish ( I think)... She kept looking for the English soundtrack...<br /><br />All in all...the film wasn't bad... Good production values,better performances, and a clever story that doesn't get too far away from itself make for tidy, dark-humored fare from across the sea! The ending will make you chuckle...in fact, the whole film will. Incredibly strange characters that we grow genuinely interested in make a film that might be worth your while...Without spoiling the plot, the film's title and DVD jacket give you a good idea where this thing is going!

I've been a fan since his first album. This film is a disservice to him. The performances, except for one by Rufus Wainwright and Teddy Thompson are simply terrible. <br /><br />Those by Martha Wainwright, Nick Cave, Antony, and Jarvis Cocker were particularly annoying. Even the one by the McGarrigle sisters was ruined by the so called harmony of Martha Wainwright.<br /><br />I've never seen my wife get up and walk out of the room on a film before and I found myself fast forwarding through the performances to get to the few interview segments, which were also difficult to watch due to the poor camera work. <br /><br />There are many who have been able to interpret Mr. Cohen's songs, Jennifer Warnes, KD Lang, Billy Joel, Aaron Neville, and Willie Nelson come to mind, but those people selected for this performance were just awful.<br /><br />Hopefully there will be another attempt at capturing Leonard Cohen on film that will illustrate his insight, talent, and intelligence.<br /><br />So sad

Just saw this at the Chicago Film Festival - avoid it at all costs unless you have sleep problems. It is a film filled with pretensions - it opens with a minor quote from 'Hiroshima mon amour' and it's all downhill from there. Camera work - imagine a child trying to imitate Wong Kar Wai. Story line - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' 'The Love I saw in You Was Just a Mirage' expanded from 3 minutes to over 2 hours but filled with repetition. For butt numbing pain this film ranks with the benches at the Methodist church my parent dragged me to when I was a kid. I want 2+ hours of my life refunded. Julian Hernandez's promoter prefaced the viewing with comment that the film was 'controversial' - that is true only for the film's narcotic effect.

I saw this on DVD with subtitles, which made it a little frustrating to get through, because of the film's length. But I was riveted throughout all of it. That I was fascinated by the characters and always engrossed in the story, despite the subtitles, is a testament to the film's power. It's an amazing piece of work. I have it on my list of ten favorite films of all time. It's easily the best foreign film I've seen in the last twenty years or so. I would like to know the full story behind the making of this film. It must have taken a very long time and required the use of hundreds of locations. Its use of some hardcore scenes (on the TV in the motel room) may unfortunately make some people choose not to see it, but if you don't mind those, you'll be deeply moved by all the stories in this one!

Most yeti pictures are fatally undermined by a grave paucity of energy and enthusiasm. Not so this gloriously bent, batty and berserk over-the-top Italian-made shot-in-Canada kitsch gut-buster: It's a wildly ripe and vigorously moronic ghastly marvel which reaches a stunning apotheosis of righteously over-baked 'what the hell's going on?' crackpot excess and inanity.<br /><br />A freighter ship crew discovers the body of a 30-foot yeti that resembles a hirsute 70's disco stud (complete with jumbo wavy afro) perfectly preserved in a large chunk of ice. They dethaw the beast, jolt him back to life with electric charges, grossly mistreat him, and keep the poor hairy Goliath in an enormous glass booth. Before you can say 'Hey, the filmmakers are obviously ripping off 'King Kong',' our titanic abominable snowdude breaks free of his cage, grabs the first luscious nubile blonde Euro vixen (the gorgeous Pheonix Grant) he lays lustful eyes on, and storms away with his new lady love. The yeti gets recaptured and flown to Toronto to be showed off to a gawking audience. Of course, he breaks free again, nabs the vixen, and goes on the expected stomping around the city rampage.<br /><br />The sublimely stupid dialogue (sample line: 'Philosophy has no place in science, professor'), cheesy (far from) special effects (the horrendous transparent blue screen work and cruddy Tonka toy miniatures are especially uproarious in their very jaw-dropping awfulness), clunky (mis)direction, and a heavy-handed script that even attempts a clumsily sincere 'Is the yeti a man or a beast?' ethical debate all combine together to create one of the single most delightfully ridiculous giant monster flicks to ever roar its absurd way across the big screen. Better still, we also have a few funky offbeat touches to add extra shoddy spice to the already succulently schlocky cinematic brew: the vixen accidentally brushes against one of the yeti's nipples, which causes it to harden and elicits a big, leering grin of approval from the lecherous behemoth (!); the vixen nurses the yeti's wounded hand while he makes goo-goo eyes at her, the yeti smashes windows with his feet while climbing a towering office building, and the furry fellow even breaks a man's neck with his toes (!!). Overall, this singularly screwball and shamefully unheralded should-be camp classic stands tall as a remarkable monolith of infectiously asinine celluloid lunacy that's eminently worthy of a substantial hardcore underground cult following.

For your own good, it would be best to disregard any positive reviews concerning this movie. This flick STINKS. Now, I like (at least in theory) low budget horror movies, but this one makes the worst mistake a low budget flick can make: It takes itself WAY too seriously. And, unfortunately, that's not it's only problem.<br /><br />It's the story of the murderous Beane clan of the British Ilses transposed to modern times. An interesting premise, but there are two things that are immediately perplexing about this film once you start watching it.<br /><br />#1- Why is the biggest name on the CD box Jenna Jameson? She's a below average looking woman who can't act, and she has a minor role. ANSWER: She's apparently a well known porn star (as you no doubt read in other reviews), so I guess this is a 'cameo' appearance for her. She's giving the film much needed 'name recognition', it seems. Her top billing isn't any indication of her talent, though, it's an indication of how UNtalented the rest of the cast is.<br /><br />#2- How can film makers be so stupid to think Canada can be passed off as Ireland? It doesn't even remotely look like Ireland. And the house that the guests/victims stay in is this great big North American wood frame Edwardian thing. They should have skipped the whole Beane theme and developed a story that took place in N.A. Also, if you're going to make a movie that takes place in Ireland, it's probably best to have more than one character with an Irish accent (and that was a REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD Irish accent.) Now,this wouldn't have been so bad if the director wasn't trying to make the next 'Night of the Living Dead', but it seems he was. Too bad. He could have had some fun with it. In fact, some of the scenes weren't far from being unintentionally comedic as they were.<br /><br />Like the infamous gutting scene, were the woman is chained to the table, stripped naked, and then sliced open and eviscerated. That's funny, you ask? Well, in the deleted scene version, the mutant killer pulls out mile after mile after mile of intestines. It's actually funny after awhile. And what self respecting cannibal eats intestines, anyway? Do we eat the intestines of cows and chickens? Heck no, we eat hams and ribs and drumsticks. Oh well.<br /><br />Some of the other cast who were annoying: the whiny, creepy Howard Rosenstein. I'm not sure, but I THINK he was supposed to be cast as a STUD. In fact, he's as big a loser and goof ball as his name would imply. Which would explain why the character played by the equally annoying Gillian Leigh fell for him.<br /><br />I checked Gillian Leigh on her link on IMDb, and apparently it's important to know that she graduated high school with honors. I can't decide if it's more amusing or pathetic to know that only a couple years after graduation, the honor student is doing nude soft-core porn scenes in a shower with a guy named Howard Rosenstein. Wonder if her former classmates have seen this movie? If they have, hopefully they'll get the message: AVOID THIS FATE! GO TO COLLEGE!!! I could go on and on, but why. If you like gore, you'll find something redeeming in this flick, but not much more.

A gritty presentation of the decay of family values and human dignity in the wake of Soviet communism, Vasili Pichul's 1988 film Little Vera is a landmark film of modern Russian cinema. Pichul's brutal drama marks a strong departure from the images of sanitized idealism promoted in Soviet times (as in Aleksandrov's Circus), brashly moving the social chaos of his time into the public spotlight. A contemporary Ukrainian setting further intensifies the effect, first by the immediacy of the film to its time period, second by its utilization of a locale not only struggling for identity in lieu of a Soviet system, but also as a nation distinct from the Russian idiom that had dominated the U.S.S.R.<br /><br />Vera, the film's title character and protagonist, is a rebellious adolescent girl with a 'dysfunctional' family including a hard-drinking father and a mother care-worn. Rejecting her would-be beau Andrei, Vera begins a destructive (and primarily sexual) relationship with a college student named Sergei. Despite her parents' dislike for the lazy Sergei, and despite Sergei's rude contempt for her parents, he moves into their cramped apartment. Tensions escalate until Vera's father drunkenly stabs Sergei. Vera must decide if she will stay loyal to her intolerable family by testifying her father acted in self-defense, or continue to support and defend the ever-detached Sergei. <br /><br />Unbearable in almost every imaginable way, Little Vera masterfully captures and communicates the inescapable void left in social life after the collapse of communism. The sexual aggressiveness of the film (it was the first film to show explicit sex) combined with the unrelenting presentation of social reality (a marked distinction from the socialist realism demanded by Stalin) effectively confronted the conditions of former-Soviet life. Most interesting, however, was public reception. While many wrote hate mail to the director and star, the film was wildly popular. Here the double-edged nature of 'film as social criticism' emerges: if done correctly, the film will make the audience uncomfortable. Because no easy solution presents itself, some viewers will hate the film and filmmakers for 'bringing up' the issue. Many films come to mind as somewhat comparable in this regard: Larry Clark's Kids, Harmony Korine's Gummo, even popular movie's such as John Hughes' Breakfast Club. <br /><br />I recommend this film to those viewers for whom the prospect of nearly two hours excruciating domestic conflict and social miasma is not overly daunting. The film is absolutely beautiful, and incredibly challenging. Despite the difficulties of watching the film, some moments within it are profoundly beautiful. Of course, the socio-historic and cultural significance of the film cannot be overlooked, and in fact operate as an even more assertive reason for watching this film.

This film wasn't good at all. I was able to catch it at a film festival and didn't appreciate the content I was forced to watch. It's a well shot film about family looking to reconnect after the death of the family's cornerstone (Gabrielle Union) dies. the film stars Billy Dee Williams as Gabrielle's Union's brother. Well, actually, Gabrielle Union portrayed the woman in her early years, which should help explain why the woman was Billy Dee Williams older sister. This had to be Billy Dee William's worst performance in his career, ever. He looked as if he didn't remember his lines in a few scenes. He was an unlikable, hardly ever empathetic character, who fathered a daughter while married to a white woman whom he already had a daughter with as well. The two daughters are older now and while the daughter he had with the white woman (Lucy) was trying to connect with him, his other daughter didn't want anything to do with him. Billy Dee's character was so pathetic that the only way they can get him to fly in from Paris for his sister's funeral was by telling him that the funeral had already passed and his late sister left him with the responsibility of handling her paperwork. Why they had to fool him? Because he didn't like attending funerals. I know. You're asking, 'but he didn't want to attend his own sister's funeral too?' Yes! He claims he didn't like being around the forced feelings of emotions that is shared amongst the people paying their respects. He didn't want anything to do with that. Now we're suppose to empathize with that a**hole? The rest of the performances in the film were flat with equally flat characters. The director and editor didn't care to consider the pacing of the film. The flashbacks were painful to watch. It was a bad film. However, it seems to be the favorite at black film festivals; a film that glorifies African-Americans dependence on Caucasians to find a love that they can settle down with, even if it is a healthy relationship. When lame love stories like this win best of festivals at the black film festivals, it makes me question the judgment of black people on film. In these same festivals, the only films that win awards are educational films about African American culture and black films directed by Caucasian directors. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with a white person directing stories written for people of color. The problems with these films is that they never argue from both point of views, which are usually the films that actually speaks to the masses. These films are often one-sided forms of didacticism. These films fail at executing the powers of both sides of the argument that the film is revolved around. The writers and directors never compose the scenes and sequences that contradict your final statement with as much truth and energy as those that reinforce it. These films always slant the argument. What I am saying is, are the people running these black film festivals judging a film off of pure content, which to me means directing, acting, writing cinematography, editing, etc., or are they judging films off of strictly the message being delivered about African American culture? Are we suppose to expect a film like Constellation to have a shot in the world against films like 'Million Dollar Baby' and 'Sideways?' What happened to film being entertaining? When I mean entertainment, I mean the ritual of sitting in the dark, staring at the screen, investing tremendous concentration and energy into what one hopes will be satisfying, meaningful emotional experience. Why can't these festivals appreciate films that get their messages across without preaching? Why can't these black film festivals acknowledge films that are well told pieces of work that are brutally honest, telling the truth? 'I believe we have no responsibility to cure social ills or renew faith in humanity, to uplift the spirits of society or even express our inner being. We have only one responsibility: to tell the truth.'--Robert McKee. Now that's something I totally agree with. These same black film festivals put down 'Hustle and Flo' as if it is that awful film stereotyping blacks. However, it's an honest film about a pimp with a dream. A pimp can't dream? I recall the last time I saw a real pimp he was a human being. And aren't they, pimps and prostitution a harsh reality in our society at large, not just in the black community but all over? The powers that be in 'black Hollywood' believe that films like this are making Afro-Americans look bad in the eyes of others, as if others don't know that there are pimps in the hood. The truth is, until African American people in film can accept the truth about themselves and dare to share it with the world, then our films will never have a chance in the world. This film was awful. The best thing was the cinematography and Zoe.

It is an excellent thriller from Turkey which can make sense.Great job from Gokbakar brothers.<br /><br />First of all,i want to point on screen play.Generally screen play in most films from Turkey is not enough,but GEN has the best shots to be said 'perfect'.And also transition parts are really excellent.<br /><br />On the other hand,'Gen' has a great topic that influence everyone.Especially,a woman ,who wants to be a psyciatrist in a sanitarium ,has a mother that is a habitual insanity.Principal causes and psychological consequences are given in Gen.The only thing you have to do is to combine all the hints.<br /><br />There is an impressive aggression part Doga Rutkay and Sahan Gokbakar played.This performance may be more realistic than ' Irréversible(Monica Bellucci) '.<br /><br />The last thing i want to say is 'Watch this movie,you'll get confused'

I sort of liked this movie, not a good one, but not the worst ever made. Though, everyone else says it is one o the worst movies ever created, I thought it was okay. There are a lot of immature jokes. It wants to be funny sometimes, but fails.<br /><br />The story is OKAY. It may be a little hard to follow for the younger audiences, though.<br /><br />The acting is pretty bad. Jamie Kennedy is a horrible actor at most times. At some times, it is even laughable. Alan Cumming is probably the best actor in here. He is funny when he is supposed to be, but some of his lines are god awful.<br /><br />Oh, and the main bad thing about this movie that I hated was Tim Avery's voice when he is possessed by the mask. The voice is HORRIBLE. Also, the scenes that he is in are so unfunny, that they are almost unbearable. I am sure they could have cut him out, and it wouldn't affect the movie at all.<br /><br />Overall, you can live without seeing this. It is a nice movie to watch if you have nothing else to watch, though. They definitely could have gone without making the sequel, but it is a decent effort. 4/10

First off I must stress how rare it is that I take the time to comment on a movie that I have seen, it takes a very special case for me to take the time and write about how I felt about a film. That said, of the hundreds of movies I have watched I have seen some of the most brilliant, Shawshank, the scariest, The Woman in Black, the funniest, Shark Attack III: Megaladon, and now the worst: Vampires vs. Zombies.<br /><br />The first thing that must be said is that this movie is not funny! For those that are looking for a light hearted movie that will just be fun or at the very least so bad that it's funny, look elsewhere. It is true that a movie such as this is not trying to be subtle and brilliant, with a title such as this you should know what you're getting into. That said, there is no excuse for a movie to abandon any and every rule that governs the movie making world. This is not an argument between the traditional movie making process and newer and more 'artsy' methods to creating a film, this is an argument between bad directors and companies being held accountable for making terrible movies.<br /><br />This movie suffers from the over used saying 'I don't know where to start.' Truly everything about this movie is broken. From the acting and to the editing there is no reason any movie should ever fail to deliver a cohesive series of events such as Vampires vs. Zombies. Some of the following problems are; 1. Scene misfires- It's clear that the director, the camera crew and the actors were not on the same page. In one scene in particular the scene begins with the camera resting on the ground looking at the passenger side door of a car. You are expecting the person inside to get out, but there is a, and this is NO exaggeration, 10 second, at least, delay between the camera comes on and the director says 'action' to where anything happens on screen. The viewer is left staring at a car door for the entire time with no sound, no movement, just the stereotypical 'dead air' that radio or TV commentators dread. Where was the editing? 2. Acting- A forgivable offense in most cases, you can't expect a movie like this to have Oscar winners after all, but Vampires vs. Zombies takes bad acting to a whole other level. These 'actors' were barely able to read their scripts obviously because anyone with any ability to read and to speak would have been able to pronounce the lines better than these fools. My only comparison for acting would have to be the opening scene from Resident Evil on Playstation. But that acting was even better.<br /><br />3- Story- Wait, what? Story? Again you can't expect this to be The Greatest Story Ever Told, but is it too much to ask that we have some semblance of a narrative? Why the Vampires? Who are the characters? Who are the bad guys? Are there good guys? Why all the lesbians? But most importantly, what's the deal with the zombies? If you have seen this movie then you will understand what I mean, but to those who haven't I'll be plain, there are no zombies in this movie aside from maybe five minutes of it. It was almost as if the director forgot about the name of the movie and was forced to throw some zombies in without explanation at the very end.<br /><br />There's so much more, but I hope I've done enough to keep anyone from seeing this movie.

1st watched 6/24/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Stefan Rujowitzky): OK thriller, but a little too predictable. This story is based in Germany, which is also where the movie is made. It is about a young medical student who gets a shot to go to a premiere school in Heidelberg and arrives seeing some strange things occurring. Someone she met on the train there and saved, shows up on the school's experimentation table and she's suspecting foul play right away. She does some investigation and the disappearance of her friend leads her to a secret society called AAA(and no it's not Alcoholics Anonymous) that has something to do with the anti-Hippocratic oath and is used to perform experimentations on live people that doctor's wouldn't normally be able to do. She finds out her grandfather(who was a dean at the school) was a big part of establishing it and it's pretty readily filled by members of the school. It's an interesting story but the problem with this movie is how quickly the audience is told what's going on and then it's kind of a horror movie with the heroine fighting off the bad boy of the group that's taking things to the next psychotic level. Although this movie was made in Europe, it plays to a young American audience with it's focus on gore, sex and the horror film premise(which is really it's big downfall) and explains why it probably made good money and spawned a sequel but doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.

Red Rock West is one of those rare films that keeps you guessing the entire time as to what will happen next. Nicolas Cage is mistaken for a contract killer as he enters a small town trying to find work. Dennis Hopper is the bad guy and no one plays them better. Look for a brief appearance by country singing star Dwight Yoakam. This is a serious drama most of the time but there are some lighter moments. What matters is that you will enjoy this low budget but high quality effort!

I have to say this is one of the best movie i have seen so far for naruto. the action was a lot better then the first movie because it had a lot more fight scene and it came to u at a faster pace. it was amazing, the choreograph was excellent as well as most of the visual effects.<br /><br />the story line is something new to naruto. but it is basically the same as the first movie. in the series u see them fight against other ninjas,but in the movies (1+2) u see them fighting against machine of mass destruction. it is nice to see them fighting something other then ninja, and that it was great to see some other power other then chakra. and how other people from other land across the ocean fight. also sakura finally killed someone that is more stronger then her. (she have truly become strong) it was a lot better then the fillers on the series that i'm watching now. when u watch this movie the fast action scene will surely make your heart pound. With new jutsus and garra in the movie, u know it is good. and the music was good as well, but i find it to be lacking something. But the ending theme song was a plus. (dind dong dang) i think was a really good song. I totally recommend it.<br /><br />all in all i give this movie a 10, because i just love it. if u do decide to watch it, enjoy it. lol

Twenty five years ago, I showed this film in some children's classes in Entomology and can still remember the excitement of the kids; they were spellbound! It is not just about the termites who have built and live in the 'Castles of Clay,' but also about the other animals who use the mounds. There is a fantastic scene in which a cobra fights a monitor lizard while a colony of mongooses watch. It is a not only good for entomology classes, but also for teaching about ecology since there is so much about the interactions between the termites and other organisms and the whole ecology of all of the organisms that live in and around the mounds. <br /><br />I wish it was available on DVD, so that I could watch it again and show others.

After watching Oldboy I was a little disappointed by the rest of Park's work, some of it is good but it never approaches the level of humour and originality that Oldboy had. This one does, it is nothing like Oldboy in plot or style but the same level of quality is there.<br /><br />The acting is good with Kang-ho Song, OK-bin Kim and Ha-kyun Shin delivering excellent performances. Kim in particular manages to swap from the creepy horror scenes to the surreal comedy without the slightest misstep.<br /><br />The plot is strange with lots of twists and turns and takes a big swipe at the vampire clichés.<br /><br />The directing is spot on with tons of pace and humour throughout and some of the most memorable scenes I have ever seen. It does boast what is probably the weirdest love scene you will ever see.<br /><br />This is just a great film.

Oh my god, it just doesn't get any worse than this!!! I always love silly little sci-fi B-movies that are so stupid they are funny and I thought that this would be one of those, but this was just so stupid I found it absolutely deplorable that it was allowed to be released. What were these people thinking? They are obviously not real filmmakers and I really hope that they have gone back to their day jobs after realizing that this is the best they could do! The acting and the not-so special effects were nowhere near the standard of even the lowest budget B-movies. And what is with the men dressed up as women, could they not find any women that wanted to appear in this crappy thing. No, probably not.<br /><br />I would give this a '0' if possible, it does not even deserve a '1' for awful. Do not waste your time (and especially not your money) on this horrible loser of a non-film!

While thinking of 'The Great Escape' I allowed my mind to wander back to this little gem of a movie from my childhood. I had read and re-read the autobiographical novel from 1949 which inspired it, and when it came to the only cinema (we never used that word then , actually) in town that showed 'foreign' films, I was first in line to buy my ticket.<br /><br />As someone brought up on wartime newsreels and propaganda films during WWII, I had an avid interest in exploring the realities of that conflict as reflected in the memoirs and stories of men who were there in person. That extended later to a keen willingness over the years to buy any book on the subject, and eventually to read the equally compelling novels of Hans Helmut Kirst and Erich Maria Remarque, which provided an even deeper sensibility. The movie versions, however, were unlike this one in that they rarely delivered the goods.<br /><br />The medium of black-and-white film has never been served so well as it was in those years. I have never seen any technicolor version of war that seems as authentic as do the deep chiaroscuros of films like 'The Wooden Horse.' If it is true that we are destined always to be captive to the images of our childhood, then I confess it freely.<br /><br />And there will never be another the likes of Leo Genn as the emblematic British war hero on film. Not even Sir Alec.

Resnais, wow! The genius who brought us Hiroshima Mon Amour takes on the challenge of making a 1930s French musical in vibrant colour. The opening voice-over with old, embellished inter-titles was a nice touch. Then the camera aperture opens (like the old hand crankers) on a black & white placard. The camera backs off (or rather, up), suddenly showing us the surprisingly brilliant colours of an elegant table set for a tea party. This is all in the first 60 seconds.<br /><br />Then the music starts. A rather banal and forgettable diddy featuring an unconvincing chorus of 3 girls blabbering some nonsense which has no relevance to the film (and yes, I speak French, so I can't blame it on the subtitles). Those characters whiz out the door and are replaced by more people who break into an even more forgettable song. Then they leave, and finally Audrey Tautou appears and we hear our first appreciable dialogue 15 minutes into the film.<br /><br />I'm not sure what Resnais intended by starting off with such a yawning waste of time & musical cacophony. But the effect on the viewer is to make you want to hurl skittles at the screen and storm out. I endured.<br /><br />It didn't get much better. I'll tell you why. There is absolutely no familiarity with any of the characters. We don't even see their faces half the time (as Resnais seems too intent on showing off the expensive scenery to care about the actual people in front of the camera). People flit on & off stage like moths around a lamp, and we the audience are unable to focus on any particular person or plot. It's as if you were to take every episode of the Brady Bunch and cram it into a 2 hour movie. With bad songs.<br /><br />The only thing that kept me watching as long as I did (1 hour) was that I was looking at the camera techniques, lighting and scenery which were all, I admit, excellent. But is that enough to hold your attention for 2 hours? Not me. Maybe tomorrow I'll try watching the end. Aw, who am I kidding. I have more important things to do. I'm sure you do, too. Skip this.

I´m not surprised that even cowgirls get the blues if this movie is anything to go by. I expected something better from Uma Thurman, which was the reason I suffered my way through this experience in the first place. An awful film with only the music as a redeeming quality. It´s just a shame that we are incapable of giving 0 out of 10 in these reviews. This movie deserves it.

The greatest effort plus the finest cast ever assembled in a movie by The Director Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon And Sean Penn on the front row. Someone said that this movie is good because directed and written by Tim Robbins but i convince you that Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon had give me a truly superb performance that i cried my heart out. Their acting is so real! No doubt about it that this movie is rated 4 and 3/4 out of 5!

The reason this is such a bad movie is because it is so very badly written, and this is entirely the fault of the hack novelist Robert James Waller, also author of Bridges of Madison County. The writing is bad because the plot is perfectly trite and the dialogue is wooden and implausible. A failing couple—a blocked American writer and a pretty Mexican woman with a history of which she is ashamed—are swept up by a strong, self-directed criminal, and after a few adventures (mostly terrifically violent) alternating with scenes that show the warmer side of the assassin, she leaves the impotent partner for the killer, who, bad as he is, sees her more clearly than anyone has before. Nothing can help this movie succeed, not even the seamed face of Scott Glenn as the killer, not the appealing latinity of Giovanna Zacarías as Luz, and not even the stalwart performance of Harvey Keitel as the CIA specialist assigned to track the killer down. A serious waste of time.

At first glance I expected this film to be crappy because I thought the plot would be so excessively feminist. But I was wrong. As you maybe have read in earlier published comments, I agree in that the feminist part in this film does not bother. I never had the idea that the main character was exaggerating her position as a woman. It's like Guzman is presented as somebody with a spine, this in contrast to her classmates. So I was surprised by the story, in fact, I thought it was quite good, except for the predictable end. Maybe it would've been a better idea to give the plot a radical twist, so that the viewer is somewhat more surprised.<br /><br />In addition, I'd like to say that Rodriguez earned her respect by the way she put away her character. I can't really explain why, but especially in the love scenes she convinced me. It just looked real I think.<br /><br />I gave it a 7 out of 10, merely because of the dull last half hour.

Those engaging the movie camera so early in the century must have figured out some of its potential very early on. This is a good story of a playboy type who needs money and inadvertently sells his soul to Satan for a lot of money. Unfortunately, the soul is his double and he must confront him frequently, tearing his life apart. There are some wonderful scenes with people fading out and, of course, the scenes when the two are on the stage at the same time. The middle part is a bit dull, but the Faustian story is always in the minds of the viewer. One thing I have to mention is the general unattractiveness of the people in the movie. Also, they pretty much shied away from much action which would have at least given some life to the thing. I first was made aware of this movie about 25 years ago and have finally been able to see it. I was not disappointed.

I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.<br /><br />There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2½ blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been ¾ of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.<br /><br />By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.<br /><br />Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.<br /><br />I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.<br /><br />This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.<br /><br />Bill<br /><br />

Woa, talk about awful. Do not waste your time. I wish I had seen the other use comments first. <br /><br />I have to admit, I didn't watch the whole thing. It was just too horrible. The worst, sappiest dialogue... I could go on and on. But what really made it unwatchable was the direction. The poor actors. You can't even tell if they have any talent because they not only have pathetic lines to speak but the director gave them no action. If you check the director's filmography on this site you will see why this film didn't have a chance. <br /><br />This would not even be good as a made for TV flick. <br /><br />Ouch!

This has to rate as one of the cheesiest of TV shows in a long time.<br /><br />Jose Ferrer played the title character, Nemo. He did the part justice and certainly looked the part. But nowadays, it strikes me that the Nemo he was made up to be bore more than a passing resemblance to Captain Bird's Eye, from the TV commercials. Or maybe it's the other way around.<br /><br />His nemesis, Professor Cunningham, was overacted brilliantly by Burgess Meredith. He never seemed to get over his 'Penguin' days from Batman. Although he doesn't do his Penguin 'quack' here, he is without parallel as the maniacal Professor. Only John Colicos, of Battlestar Galactica fame, chewed up the scenery better as a maniacal despot.<br /><br />I never can recall what the grudge was between Nemo and Cunningham, but it must have been severe, since the Prof. never missed a chance to try and scupper Nemo, and vice-versa.<br /><br />The effects were nothing special, though Prof. Cunningham's submarine was way better looking than Nemo's. It also had a crew of strange, fish-like amphibians that served Cunningham and did his every bidding.<br /><br />However, the most memorable aspect of the whole show was Prof. Cunningham's secret weapon. The Delta Beam! He was forever saying 'Fire Delta Beam!', whereupon, a fishy crewman would horribly overract the motion of firing the weapon by use of a full shoulder shrug. Truly priceless! They don't make them like this anymore, and perhaps just as well. But like other series of this era, for those who remember it, it will always have an affectionate, if cheddar-covered, place in our hearts.

<br /><br />A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.<br /><br />The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).<br /><br />If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last time!!!

What do you expect when there is no script to begin with, and therefore nothing that the director can work with. Hayek and Farrell, and Donaldson and Kirkin are good actors, they just don't have anything to say or anything to react to. Even the earthquake was pretty poor. And I don't know how closely the movie follows the novel, but two have the Jewish girl show up out of nowhere just so show that Arturo has a nice, warm heart, but some stereotypes don't amount to anything. And he even buries Camilla out in the desert, instead of bringing her back to L.A. for a nice Catholic burial where he could at least bring her flowers once in a while. Pathetic. And the L.A. set was ridiculously graphically created. Anything good? The window to his apartment felt real, the curtains, the sounds, the wind. And Donaldson is always great. Has been since the Body Snatchers or Night of the Living Dead, whichever it was.

Working girl Kitty (Sothern) is engaged to Bill (Kelly), who neglects her by working long hours at his garage in order to save money for their marriage. After being stood up on her birthday, Kitty goes on a double-date/blind date, where she meets department store heir Bob Hartwell (Hamilton). She falls in love, but leaves him when his protestations of love appear to cover a desire for her to be his mistress, rather than his wife. Faithful Bill rallies 'round to comfort her, and at last she gives in to his repeated requests to reinstate their engagement, pressured in part by Bill's support of her family after she loses her job. When Bob returns, however, convinced that he wants marriage after all, will Kitty follow her heart or her conscience? <br /><br />This film was a lot better than I'd expected it to be. The character of Bill at first comes off as the sort of loud comic Irishman type that Jack Carson played so often. But Kelly (and the script) infuse the character with real compassion and love, and Bill turns out to be the best person in the entire group. Viewers may find themselves rooting for him against the feckless Hartwell! The tone of the film wavers, however, between light-hearted romance and a much darker side, especially in the depiction of a dance marathon and a rather horrific accident at Bill's garage.<br /><br />The cast is rounded out by the dependable Jane Darwell as Kitty's mother, an impish but not yet thoroughly obnoxious Mickey Rooney as Kitty's younger brother, and Spencer Charters as Kitty's ne'er-do-well father.

About 20 minutes into this lame excuse for a movie, I realized it reminded me of one of those annoying people at work who're always telling really lame jokes or doing extremely unfunny things, because they think it's funny and are trying to entertain everyone. <br /><br />This film is billed as starring Traci Lords, she's not that bad of an actress, but her lines aren't funny and SHE'S NOT THE STAR<br /><br />The acting is some of the most god-awful I've ever seen, except for Lords, the girl who plays Casey, and maybe the Colonel-who seems oddly out of place. I can't imagine why a retired military Colonel would want to start a SNOWBOARDING ACADEMY. Do those even exist?<br /><br />The budget would've been better spent coaxing these women into doing a full length porn feature. <br /><br />'Freddy Got Fingered' currently has a 3.5 score, 'Frostbite' has a 2.7. I'm baffled these two movies are within a 1.0 to each other, FGF is 'The Godfather' compared to this garbage.<br /><br />1/10 stars

Due to the invention of a 'The Domestication Collar', flesh-eating zombies are brought under control, and become productive members of society; however, they perform menial tasks. The servile dead attend to those living in fenced US 1950s-styled small towns, while untamed zombies roam around in 'The Wild Zone'. In the town of 'Willard', pre-teen K'Sun Ray (as Timmy Robinson) lives with parents Carrie-Anne Moss and Dylan Baker (as Helen and Bill Robinson). Alas, the Robinsons are the only family on their street who do not own a zombie; their new neighbors, the Bottoms, have six. So, to keep up, the Robinsons obtain zombie Billy Connolly (as Fido).<br /><br />Unfortunately, Mr. Connolly's 'Domestication Collar' is damaged by an old lady's walker, and he eats her; then, new and hungry zombies infest the town. Meanwhile, young Ray has grown attached to Connolly (the boy and his zombie are like TV's 'Timmy and Lassie') and, the Robinson family find it difficult to cooperate with the controlling 'Zomcom' authorities. <br /><br />'Fido' doesn't go far enough into its own intriguing 'Wild Zone'; but, it is a colorful, stylish, and amusingly satirical addition to zombie film lore. Ray and the cast perform well, individually; with nubile zombie Sonja Bennett (as Tammy) and owner Tim Blake Nelson (as Theopolis) the most memorable pair. Director Andrew Currie and crew, including Rob Gray (design), Jan Kiesser (photography), Don MacDonald (music), and James Willcock (design), deservedly won awards.<br /><br />******* Fido (2006) Andrew Currie ~ K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker

I grew up watching this series. I was about seven/eight years old when it was on. I still remember the 1st episode which was called 'The New House.' It scared the h*ll out of me! I can almost still hear that statue, laughing madly. And the ending, oh my God! The hooror spirit comes in the room for the child: Yikes! This was classic TV and it was a one of a kind series. I have found a DVD collection for sale on the internet: 2 actually. My question to any readers: Has anyone purchased this set? Its a bootleg. Both sellers claim to have very good copy. I have a sketchy and poor DVD of 'The New House' episode, and a couple of other episodes that are a bit better,however, if anyone knows if these are much clearer it would be worth it to me to buy and share with my kids. A great series, clever, scary and daringly supernatural. Thanks in advance to any fans who have the low down on any of this- In fact, I'd love to discuss it. Chris Walker

My 2nd favorite film of 1970 (after Five Easy Pieces) was totally dismissed by a lot of idiots, calling in an audience-baiting piece of trash. Peter Boyle, a well-known liberal, is incredible as the hard-assed working stiff who has a few problems with the younger generation. He's a frightening dude, but has a great imagination and is very funny. I was a teenage liberal when this was released, but as horrifying as Joe seemed to me, he also cracked me up! Susan Sarandon, in her first role, is perfect and a mixed-up stone rich fox. The dinner scene in Queens is hilarious and insightful for everybody involved.<br /><br />This WAS NOT an exploitation film and the script (which was Oscar-nominated) should have won that year. The director just didn't WASTE enough money making it to give it enough credibility in Hollywood. No matter your political pursuasion, then and now, you'll like somebody in this film. A definite 9 out of 10. It's on DVD and video. Check it out!

It's about time for a female boxing flick, but this one ain't it. Though the acting isn't too bad, the predictable storyline and silly dialogue pretty much ruin this one from the get go. To top it off, the boxing scenes display zero tension. Come on! How hard is it to make a boxing match seem exciting??!!

I remember coming home from school to watch up and coming this was the story of a black family that moves out of the gheto into a up class community the family was name Wilson Frank Wilson man with his own construction business his wife Joyce was a bank manager they had 3 teenage kids Kevin Valerie and Marcus. This was a very good show. it was educational with out being preachie. the show was well written. This show gave us a look at a successful African American before the Cosby Show. A lot a black actor appeared on this show from Ester Role to David Hubberd to 227 Stonnie Jackson to name a few. If you are able to find this show on DVD you should get it for your whole family

This movie was unbelievably bad... It's gory but the violence is just too much to the point where it looks extremely fake and predictable. Since Everything is shown to you there is nothing left to the imagination. And the plot... what plot? There really isn't any! The pacing is unbelievably slow (despite the random acts of violence) and the screenplay must have been written by a deranged 12 year old kid who kills kittens for fun. So this movie was banned in 31 countries? I could see why... not because of the gore (boring and trite) but because it was a terrible movie. It should have been BANNED from existence. Avoid this one like the plague. 1 out of 10

The Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu (1976) is a vastly underrated early work by director John Woo. The film stars Dorian Tan (Tan Tao-liang) and features Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and James Tien in significant supporting roles. Many people believe, or have been lead to believe by deceptive advertising, that this is a Jackie Chan film. This is not a Jackie Chan film, Dorian Tan is the star but Jackie gives one of his best (most serious) early performances.<br /><br />The Hand of Death is about a Shaolin disciple named Yunfei (Tan) who is sent on a mission to assassinate a Shaolin traitor named Shih Xiaofeng (Tien) and protect a revolutionary named Zhang Yi (Woo). Along his journey Yunfei meets up with a young woodcutter named Tan (Chan) and a disgraced sword fighter (Chang Chung) known as 'the wanderer.' Both men have suffered at the hands of Shih and want to take revenge. The three team up to defeat Shih and his eight bodyguards and escort the revolutionary to safety.<br /><br />The martial arts action is above average under the direction of Sammo Hung. Dorian Tan uses his trademark high kicks very effectively as the 'Northern eighteen styles kicks' along with some 'Southern five styles boxing.' Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan provide excellent martial arts performances as well. James Tien is not the greatest martial artist on the Jade screen but does an acceptable job. Some of the early fights are a bit slow and seem over choreographed but the final showdowns featuring Chan, Tan and Hung are very good.<br /><br />Director John Woo provides plenty of interesting character development in the film, which is refreshing. The cinematography by Leung Wing Kat is very stylish, unique and beautiful for a kung fu film of this era. Joseph Koo's music: a combination of soft flutes and 70's 'Shaft' style orchestral pieces is kung fu cinema at its best. Hand of Death is not Jackie and Sammo's usual kung fu comedy. Hand of Death is a serious, straightforward revenge driven story.<br /><br />Hand of Death aka Countdown in Kung Fu is an underrated classic in the old school kung fu genre. The film is one of the best artistically of its time and a preview of the great things to come from Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung. Hung's great choreography is put on display here before his directorial debut and Chan's early charisma and talent can be clearly seen.<br /><br />Hand of Death is a solid, stylish old school kung fu film and a brilliant early work of the legendary John Woo.<br /><br />Kung Fu Genre Rating 7.5/10 <br /><br />Wanderer to Tan (referring to his new weapon): 'The Little Eagle Wing God Lance.' <br /><br />Tan: 'Just a knickknack.'

I'm a writer working at home and Diagnosis Murder is my lunchtime break companion - good, clean fun, good humour and nostalgia for the days of the Dick van Dyke show. How innocent we all were (and how innocent is Diagnosis Murder). I particularly enjoyed the episodes with other nostalgia figures like Joe Mannix. The bad guys always get caught, the good guys carry on. The stars clearly enjoy themselves and are having a ball without taking themselves too seriously.<br /><br />One beef: why were so many of the villains women or at least bitches? Amanda was too dizzy. Its hard to imagine her really carrying out anything as gruesome as an autopsy.<br /><br />I hope we haven't seen the last of Dick Van Dyke and family on our screens, esp. at lunchtimes!!

The first users comments are very detailed for a very vague movie. Not saying that I disagree, but this summary can be written in a few sentences. To get straight to the point, this is pretty much like watching the making of a really bad amateur porno flick. There are a few funny points in the movie, but with the kind of things that happen in todays youth everyday its actually kind of lame. The main actor in the movie is a pompous jackass and both guy and girl in the film are way too modest to be in a film like this. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. The only reason why I gave it a 4 and not a 1 is that they used at least a somewhat attractive girl in the movie and towards the end you got to see almost full frontal nudity from the girl, thats it, thats the only thing thats worth watching it for. the end

Yes, it's not a great cinematic achievement, but Toy Soldiers is a fun and entertaining movie. The young cast does a great job with both dramatic and comedic aspects of the story, and I particularly liked Shawn Phelan as Derek/'Yogurt'. I've seen this one plenty of times over the years, and will probably see it several more. Just don't think too much and you'll love it - enjoy!

Last November, I had a chance to see this film at the Reno Film Festival. I have to say that it was a lot of fun. A few tech errors aside, it was a great experience. I loved the writing and acting, especially from the guy that played the lead role. There is a lot of heart in this movie, a lot of wit to. I got a chance to speak with a few of the filmmakers after it was done, and they seemed real nice. All in all the whole movie was just a positive experience, and one I'd definitely recommend. The story was entertaining and cool, as a woman I've been through a lot of the same problems as the lead guy, and I could really understand his problems because of it. The movie does a great job of giving us people we can sympathize with. The friends in the movie are really well written to, they are realistic. I know people like these, I only wish Imy friends and I could sound as cool as these people when we talk. The whole movie is just real cool, I wish there were more films out there like it.<br /><br />- Jayden

This movie has some of the worst acting that I have ever seen! Some scenes are original such as the nails coming through the floor. This nail trap catches these bad guys. The rest of the movie degrades as you go. I can't believe that this movie is not even in the bottom 100 movies of all time. I also can't believe that there are sequels! The next crap movie that I want to watch is R.O.T.O.R. Could R.O.T.O.R really be much worse than this?<br /><br />

I spotted in the guide to films list for the Santa Barbara Film Festival, where I went when I was in Hollywood, that this film was in screening. Basically there is an election for the new chairman of the Hong Kong Triads Wo Sing Society coming up, so you can imagine how much violence that is going to occur during this. The struggle is between 'candidates' Lam Lok (Simon Yam) and Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) for control of the oldest and most powerful Triad parts of the society. Also starring Louis Koo as Jimmy Lee, Nick Cheung as Jet, Cheung Siu Fai as Mr. So, Lam Suet as Big Head and Lam Ka Tung as Kun. There are some good realistic corruption themes and moments, just about enough action, apart from maybe when the cops get involved, but a sequel followed, so it's a pretty worthwhile crime drama thriller. Very good!

Nothing more than a soccer knock-off of The Mighty Ducks, this film proved to be annoying in most aspects. This was one of those times where you're parents ask you to take your younger siblings just so they don't have to deal with them for a few hours. To say the least, my younger sisters liked it, but it proved to be too much like the far superior Mighty Ducks. Oh well, at least Olivia d'Abo was hot and Steve Guttenberg still had a job at that point in time.

This little two-person movie is actually much bigger than it looks. It has so many layers. I've watched it over and over, and always pick up on something new. I am amazed at the depth of the acting, and I feel if this movie had gotten wider release that there would be no question that Alan Rickman is a major star

It is only Robert De Niro film which I really hates. It is stupid film with horrible acting (of course not De Niro). For me, Brian De Palma must do his mafia films as always like Scarface (1983) or The Untouchables (1987). I also loved De Palma's Mission: Impossible (1996). De Niro worked with Palma two different times too, Greetings and The Wedding Party. I though that The Wedding Party was OK too (I didn't watch Greetings). <br /><br />Screenplay is really bad and unfunny. There are no any scene where I can smile for even one time. Film lost a chance to be a funny style even a little bit in a 'Be Black baby' scene and also I don't like the scene where a guy's sexual organ appeared. So, it is one of the worst film I have ever seen! just worst. I hate that.

'Three Daring Daughters' is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the 'its just a movie' phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married? <br /><br />Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.

LIGHTS OF NEW YORK was the first 'all-taking' feature film, coming in at a brisk 57 minutes and directed by Bryan Foy (of the famous vaudeville family).<br /><br />The story has two dopey barbers (Cullen Landis, Eugene Palette) yearning for a chance at 'big city life' and getting involved with gangsters and bootleg booze. One of the guys gets framed for the murder of a cop but is saved at the last minute by a gun moll (Gladys Brockwell).<br /><br />Much of the story takes place in a night club called The Night Hawk, which is run by a crook named Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) who has his eye on a pretty chorine (Helene Costello) who is the girl friend of Landis. Costello gets to do a brief dance, and we hear Harry Downing (made up to resemble Ted Lewis) sing 'At Dawning) in his best Al Jolson style.<br /><br />The acting ranges from good (Palette and Brockwell) to awful (Oakman). A couple of the actors muff their lines but then keep right on with the scene. As noted elsewhere this was intended to be a short 2-reeler and was made on a shoestring budget. Yet the sound quality is surprisingly good, the voices all register clearly, and there is a neat cinematic touch in the silhouette death.<br /><br />The film was a box-office smash even though it was shown as a silent film where theaters were not wired for the new sound technology. No one expected this little film to gross an amazing $1.3 million. It briefly made stars of Costello and Landis and certainly launched Palette on his long career as a star character actor.<br /><br />Co-stars include Mary Carr as the mother, Robert Elliott as the detective, Eddie Kane as the street cop, and Tom Dugan as a thug.

What a pleasure. This is really a parody. Only french people can do that kind of thing without being coarse. And as a result, you spend a really good time watching Jean Dujardin playing the dumb. Most of the movie stands on his shoulders, and he has them wide enough to make this movie a good one. He has the perfect way of overdoing the James Bond kind of guy that he is no match for Mike Meyers in Austin Powers for example. The dialogs are also good enough to keep up the attention of the spectator, with a lot of stupid jokes, that's really perfect. Both of the women having the main parts in the movie bear the comparison with the main character, and that was a challenge. There is no really plot in this movie, but that's not what is expected in this kind of movie. You just wish to laugh one hour 40 minutes, and that's precisely what the movie manage to do. It deserves the success it has in France

I rented the dubbed-English version of Lensman, hoping that since it came from well-known novels it would have some substance. While there were hints of substance in the movie, it mostly didn't rise above the level of kiddie cartoon. Maybe the movie was a bad adaptation of the book, or it lost a lot in the dubbed version. Or maybe even the source novels were lightweight. But for whatever reason, there wasn't much there.<br /><br />I noticed lots of details that were derivative, sloppy, poorly dramatized, or otherwise deficient. Some examples: The opening scenes looked borrowed from the 2001 'star gate' scene and the Star Wars image of hyperspace. The robot on the harvester looked like an anthropomorphized 'R2-D2'.<br /><br />It starts out trying to borrow its comic relief style of Star Wars, but mercifully (since the humor doesn't work) gives up on comedy and plays it serious. In that sense, it's superior to the Star Wars franchise, which started with a clever sense of humor, and eventually deteriorated to Jar-Jar's annoying silliness.<br /><br />The agricultural details were apparently drawn by someone who had never seen a farm. The harvester was driving through the unharvested middle of a field, dumping silage onto unharvested crops, rather than working from one side to the other and dumping the silage onto already-harvested rows or into a truck. Corn (maize) was pouring out the grain chute, but the farm lands were drawn like a wheat field.<br /><br />When it was time for Kim's father had to face his fate, there wasn't any dramatic weight to the scene. That could have been partly the fault of the English-language voice actor, but the drawings didn't show much weight either. Kim's reactions in that scene were similarly unconvincing.<br /><br />Similarly, when a character named Henderson was killed, Chris showed very little reaction, even though they were apparently supposed to have been close. (Henderson's death is no spoiler; his name isn't revealed until his death scene.) She seems to promptly forget him. Someone's expression of sympathy shows more feeling than she does. I think the voice actor deserves most of the blame in that case; there's at least a hint of feeling in the drawings of Chris.<br /><br />On several occasions, villains fail to accomplish their orders. A villain leader often punishes those failures with miserable deaths. I can't say whether that's lifted from Star Wars, or if that comes from an earlier source -- possibly the Lensman books.<br /><br />There's a scene where a space ship crash-lands. As it plunges toward the ground, parts are break off the ship. But so many pieces are fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it lands.<br /><br />While in most cases Chris seems like a competent, tough space hero, there's a scene where she shrieks like an incompetent damsel in distress. Someone tough enough to get over Henderson's death so quickly should at least be able to shout, 'help, it's got me and I can't reach my gun!' instead of just shrieking.<br /><br />The character with the most personality (almost too much at times) is D.J. Bill. He sounded like Wolfman Jack, the D.J. in American Graffiti. I wonder if he's as well-voiced in the original language.<br /><br />Two planets in the movie exploded. The explosions were unimpressive, and appeared to owe a lot of inspiration to Star Wars. To its credit, however, the cause of the explosion was completely unlike the Death Star's primary weapon. The dialog had a good, interesting explanation for the cause. Many other explosions in the movie did look good, just not the planetary explosions.<br /><br />Some of the sound effects are very cheesy, as if borrowed from a late 1970s video game. Some of the images look like primitive video games, and some influence from Tron is visible too. On the other hand, the sound effects are often pretty decent, although that emphasizes the cheesy-sounding parts. The art is good too, particularly when it stays away from the often cheesy-looking computer graphics.<br /><br />Finally, there's the story. If a movie tells a good story, it can get away with a lot of production shortcomings. But the plot here was pretty lightweight. A naïve boy tries to help someone on a crippled space ship, and acquires a great power he doesn't understand. He and his band of very virtuous companions struggle against a powerful, unredeemably evil enemy. He makes friends, learns about his special power, and grows into a young man. If he is persistent and virtuous enough, he might even defeat the evil enemy. Details along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline, but there's very little more than that in this movie.<br /><br />In the end, it's just a kiddie cartoon. But then, since it looks like the primary intended audience is older children, maybe it doesn't need to be anything more than that.

Latcho Drom, or Safe Journey, is the second film in Tony Gatlif's trilogy of the Romany people. The film is a visual depiction and historical record of Romany life in European and Middle Eastern countries. Even though the scenes are mostly planned, rehearsed, and staged there is not a conventional story line and the dialog does not explain activities from scene to scene. Instead, the film allows the viewer to have sometimes a glimpse, sometimes a more in-depth view of these people during different eras and in different countries, ranging from India, Egypt, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, France, and Spain.<br /><br />The importance of music in Romany culture is clearly expressed throughout the film. It is a vital part of every event and an important means of communication. Everything they do is expressed with music. Dance is another important activity. Like Romany music, it is specialized and deeply personal, something they alone know how to do correctly. We are provided glimpses into their everyday activities, but the film is not a detailed study of their lives. Rather, it is a testament to their culture, focusing on the music and dance they have created and which have made them unique.<br /><br />Mr. Gatlif portrays the nomadic groups in a positive way. However, we also witness the rejection, distrust, and alienation they receive from the non-Romany population. It seems that the culture they have developed over countless generations, and inspired from diverse countries, will fade into oblivion because conventional society has no place for nomadic ways.<br /><br />The other films in the trilogy are Les Princes (1983) and Gadjo Dilo (1998).

the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous

This was a movie that I hoped I could suggest to my American friends. But after 4 attempts to watch the movie to finish, I knew I couldn't even watch the damn thing to close. You are almost convinced the actual war didn't even last that long. Other's will try to question my patriotism for criticizing a movie like this. But flat out, you can't go from watching Saving Private Ryan to LOC. Forget about the movie budget difference or the audience - those don't preclude a director from making an intelligent movie. The length of the movie is not so bad and the fact that it is repetitive - they keep attacking the same hill but give it different names. I thought the LOC was a terrible terrain - this hill looked like my backyard. The character development sequences (the soilders' flashbacks, looking back to their last moments, before being deployed) should have been throughout the movie and not just clumped into one long memory. To this day, I have yet to watch the ending. But there was a much better movie (not saying much) called Border.

They actually make a big deal out of a scene in which Steven hurdles a 3 foot fence. The plot is...barely there, the acting (so to speak) is distressing and the action is catastrophically lame. This is the worst Seagal film ever, and that is saying something.

*** Possable spoiler but probably not ***<br /><br />The game is called donkey kong but donkey kong is not even in it<br /><br />anymore! Diddy is gone aswell!<br /><br />The 1st Donkey Kong Country was one of my two all time favorite<br /><br />Super Nintendo games. (The other being Super Mario World)<br /><br />The 2nd Donkey Kong at least had diddy kong and good levels,<br /><br />although it felt more like a game based on pirates at times.<br /><br />However this one is the worst of the lot! It does not have the feel of<br /><br />the original or 2nd, The enemy's look stupid and the levels are<br /><br />even worse. It does not look realistic anymore! I did not enjoy his game unlike the last two, the first had great<br /><br />background music and the 2nd was not bad but the music in this<br /><br />game is horrible!<br /><br />It happens a lot these days that movies, shows and sometimes<br /><br />video games that start out fantastic, end up with it being ruined by<br /><br />a stupid sequel! I am sad to say I feel that donkey kong as a saga is not as good<br /><br />now that it has Donkey Kong 3!<br /><br />They should have left it at the original or MAYBE the 2nd one.