Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

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

The first hour of the movie was boring as hell. There is no suspense, no action, not even a plot. The movie went no where. I mean they could have made the movie in 15 min short film. Overall, the movie wasn't good at all, and I don't recommend it.

Well, well... Even if you're a fervent admirer of Lang's silent films, this early one - the first part of a two-part unfinished four-part serial(!) - will leave you in doubt about Fritz's narrative skills. (His directorial skills aren't that evident either, but here and there one senses his talent for building up atmosphere.) <br /><br />The pic's just pure juvenile nonsense, which wouldn't be half as bad, were it not for the long ponderous stretches in between the childish action scenes.<br /><br />But the whole affair almost gets by on its amiable innocence.<br /><br />4 out of 10 Inca treasures

This movie totally sucked!!! Don't even rent it! You'll hate it! The plot didn't make sense, the characters sucked, and why was that penguin trying to get the pebble anyway? If that girl penguin would only like him because he has a pretty pebble than the relationship would not be based on love only on money! I very much disliked this movie(Hate is such a strong word!). And penguins cant fly! Even if they believe than they can do it, they cant. p.s. I am not who you think I am!

While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is 'racy'. Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth?

What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. 'Jeopardy' was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.<br /><br />While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.<br /><br />The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?

I first was made aware of this film when I saw a preview before another movie. I was intrigued but it didn't get to see it before it's short run in theaters was done.<br /><br />It is not an easy movie to watch multiple times. There is much violence inflicted upon unarmed civilians. There are lessons to be learned here. One of Patricia Arquette's lines sums up on. 'To Americans if it didn't happen on TV it just didn't happen' There is a lot of truth to that.<br /><br />Another is that at one point she thinks that just because she announces she is an American Citizen that soldiers will part and let her pass. It doesn't work that way.<br /><br />The scenery is beautiful. The acting is all decent. THE PROFESSOR is especially good. Mainly though I care about these characters. Francis McDormand and Spaulding Gray are fine but their appearance is short, so they don't matter much. Patricia has guts. In the hands of a lesser actor this could have turned out very badly. As it is love or hate the movie you should still come away with the idea that there still exist military dictatorships in the world in this century, and until one of our own is hurt we ignore their oppression.<br /><br />Aung San Suu Kyi, is the female political leader in the movie. In real life she won the Nobel Peace Prize. She was only recently released from house arrest. The W. Bush administration, as of the date I write this, is attempting to pressure the military government to engage in talks with her and re-form the government. The Burmize government was under such scrutiny that is changed the name of the country to the Maynamar Republic. The U.S. Government has yet to recognzie the new name.<br /><br />If you don't wnat a message in your movie don't watch this one. If you don't mind a little educations with your entertainment then it's a fine one.

Roomies is the story of a guy who loses everything except his incredible girlfriend and an idea for a corn dog that he plans to patent and sell. Immediately his uncle dies and leaves him a house and a car, and he gets some roommates in to help pay the rent and gets a job. Then his girlfriend gets drunk and cheats on him, so he goes and writes a book about roommates and becomes famous.<br /><br />88 minutes. None of these details of the plot are explored in any detail, what you read above is more or less as interesting as the film will be. When his uncle dies there are some breasts on screen, one of the potential roommates he interviews is pretty funny for about 40 seconds. The ending is literally the worst i've ever seen. I want the other 87 minutes of my life back!<br /><br />I hadn't thought anyone could make a movie with so little merit: Surely there are rules against this sort of thing getting to the public? The script can't be longer than twenty pages, and the budget must have been minuscule because the whole film has about 3 locations and a car. The only conceivable use for Roomies, in my opinion, is if you're holding someone hostage and want to frustrate them beyond human thought. If so, get it on repeat and you'll have a ready made gibbering wreck within the day.<br /><br />one-and-a-half out of 10

I love dissing this movie. My peers always try their best to defend it, probably out of love for Quentin Tarantino or Harvey Keitel, but they'll never convince me that this one should be treasured. Here's some huge reasons why: A: The plot goes from kidnapping road trip movie to vampire-inhabited strip bar slasher flick with no set-up whatsoever. Suddenly something very real turns into something very fake, which is like sitting the audience down to a Thanksgiving feast then exploding it with dynamite. B: That untalented Juliette Lewis is in it. C: Preposterous ideas abound such as actual torso-and-leg guitars, brothers with the last name 'Gecko,' bad vampire make-up jobs, Cheech Marin playing three characters (?), and a crotch-based gun that only fires when 'erect' and belongs to a guy who goes by 'Sex Machine.' If Robert Rodriguez didn't pathetically try to be so innovative with his violence, I might've had fun with this obvious popcorn flick. The whole project's like he got the ideas by playing with action figures. The only thing even close to being considered my favorite scene is George Clooney's laugh-out-loud cheesy monologue after he kills his blood-sucking, horny-for-children, terrible-acting brother. I swear I think they thought it up right then and there. This movie's out to offend, and ends up offending those who want the offensive. Horrible movie.

'Out to Sea' is a fun movie starring that wonderful duo of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. This film is not quite as funny as their 'Grumpy Old Men' comedies (which it strongly resembles), but there are many laughs throughout. Lemmon and Matthau play a couple of in-laws who take a cruise together. Once they get on the boat, the thing Lemmon doesn't know is that Matthau has signed them on as dance hosts so they don't have to pay for the cruise. This infuriates Lemmon who's in no mood to dance. What's worse, Matthau doesn't even know how to dance. Nevertheless, they go along with it and it the process they meet some of their fellow passengers and crew members. Here are the crew members: there's the cruise director Gil Godwyn, played to the hilt by 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' veteran Brent Spiner, who acts like an evil dictator. There's two fellow dance hosts, played by 'Barney Miller' star Hal Linden and veteran movie musical star Donald O'Connor. There's the ship's owner Mrs. Carruthers, played by 'Golden Girl' Rue McClanahan. As for the passengers: there's Vivian, a widow played by Gloria De Haven, who falls in love with Lemmon. There's Liz, played by one of my all-time favorite actresses, Dyan Cannon, who falls in love with Matthau. There's Mavis, Liz's mother, played by veteran stage actress Elaine Stritch. And they meet others as well. All these actors are a pleasure to watch as Lemmon and Matthau play off of them. It's great to see Cannon here, see's beautiful as ever; Stritch is a hoot; Spiner is a funny comic villain who's plays it deadly straight; De Haven is wonderful; Linden, O'Connor, and McClanahan have a good moment or two; and finally, the two main stars, Lemmon and Matthau, are fine as usual. A nice little gem of a comedy.<br /><br />*** (out of four)

What a silly movie. While it looks nice, it doesn't make a lot of sense. On the one hand, the film suggests that Juana's 'madness' was that she was just a woman ahead of her time. On the other hand, she has an obsession that is right out of the worst Victorian novel of the wronged woman, and that does seem a sort of mental problem, like Miss Havesham in a castle. This movie is what Elizabeth would have been if Elizabeth had not been able to get past Essex's sexual attraction.

1933 seemed to be a great year for satires ('Duck Soup' for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the 'Goings On About Town' page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire.

The only reason I haven't given this film an awful rating is because I feel that it was such an awful film in every aspect that it deserves at the very least a 2/10; for not trying. <br /><br />The plot is the least of your worries as you are slapped in the face with over the top language and scenes like 'the singing arse-hole' in a poor attempt to shock and disgust. Seen as the main aim of this film is to shock and the main body of it didn't achieve this, the final scene disgustingly manages to erase the memory of this shockingly pointless film and fulfil its aim to be the most filthy film ever.<br /><br />A really low budget film, awfully acted and the dialogue is shockingly bad.<br /><br />I give it 0/10 really !!!

***SPOILERS*** This movie - called EATEN ALIVE here in the UK is quite possibly the worst film ever made and is brilliant just for that. A sexy rich girl teams up with a rugged action man to search for her sister in the New Guinea jungle. What follows is an unspeakably crap mixture of cannibalism, insane cults and religious maniacs that has to be seen to be believed. The cannibalism scenes are quite horrific but are so badly staged and acted that they prove quite amusing. The cast are awful except for Janet Agren as the female lead who is excellent. Look out for the scene where she is stripped naked and covered with gold paint! My rating - 1 out of 10.

Glacier Fox is one of the most heartrending and wonderfully photographed wildlife films ever made.<br /><br />The film makes you care about each member of this fox family, from the blind cub to the strongest - their adventures are at times hilarious and also tragic. Set against an inhospitable countryside, the audience's hearts warm to the family members.<br /><br />The music score and lyrics tell the story intercut with narration about what is happening in general terms.<br /><br />Man remains one of the biggest predators, but we are left in no doubt that the foxes are capable of living, not just surviving beyond human endeavours.

Another powerful chick flick. This time, it revolves around Diana Gusman who is always getting into fights at school. Instead of getting expelled, she takes her anger elsewhere, to the boxing ring. She trains to be a boxer and there she meets featherweight Adrian and begins to fall in love with him. This movie has a powerful message of taking your dreams and going with them even if someone doesn't believe in you (in this case, her dad doesn't believe in her). That alone makes the movie worth the price. Enjoy

First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.<br /><br />I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!<br /><br />The real 'Crime' (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!

The beginning of the 90s brought many 'quirky' and 'off-beat' independent films, a particular sub-genre of which is the semi-spiritual desert crime movie. Others of note are 'Wild at Heart', 'From Dusk Til Dawn', and to a certain extent 'Natural Born Killers'. Good films like those spawned junk like 'Highway 666', 'Destiny Turns on the Radio' and this ineptly surreal anti-masterpiece 'Under The Hula Moon'. It's a comedy that aims for a certain emotional tone, attains it, but keeps going to the point of irritation. While the pursuit across the spirit-world of the desert and the casting of Chris Penn are good ideas, the film is not dirty enough or hard enough to be a good crime movie, and isn't focused enough on laughs to really be a comedy. I won't blow the ending, but let's just say it's bad. The film is basically a bad side effect of genre-cancer. This is the dregs of indie-mania.

so. i was completely in love with this movie. gaga for it, even with all its plot twists...but the one thing i found really disturbing was the connection between the two best friends in Tim and Kyle. While the writer of the film gave us such a poignant moment between the two, and their sexual experimentation/confusion, he then gives us a plot twist that makes them half brothers?!?! (Although the subject isn't brought up in the film....and left unexplained and unaccounted for) I just thought that it was in bad taste, and the fact that it wasn't even discussed is even worse. (Oops we've created a taboo...now let's not address the situation, because that wouldn't really be P.C.) Otherwise a spectacular film

Bobbie Phillips, who in her own right has amassed a great list of credits as a hard working Hollywood actress, shines in this third installment of UPN and Village Roadshow's Chameleon series. In this installment, the sexual innuendo has been toned down with Kam showing a caring maternal side towards a recently orphaned genius teen. Bobbie delivers this role to the viewers with great panache'. The action and stunts were the best in the series.

Is there a book titled 'How to Make a Movie with Every 'Man vs. Nature' Cliché Imaginable'? If not, Ants would make excellent source material for the chapter on killer insects. Ants doesn't have one shred of originality to be found at any point of its 100 minute runtime. I suppose the most surprising thing about Ants is that they actually stretched the film to 100 minutes. The set-up, the characters, the various sub-plots, the death scenes, and the way the ants are presented have been done before any number of times – and in most cases, much better. It's amazing that so many of these Insects on a Rampage films were made in the 70s because they're all basically the same movie.<br /><br />And can someone please tell me what in God's name Myrna Loy is doing in this monkey-turd of a movie? A woman as talented and classy as Loy deserved better than Ants as one of her final movies.

Hehehe. This was one of the best funny road movies ever! I laughed so I fell out of the chair. With many Norwegian and foreign celebrities playing themselves. Harald Zwart is the producer, known for films like Agent Cody banks and of course One Night at McCool's.<br /><br />It is about Norwegian crazy fans, going to the world cup in Soccer in Germany 2006. And all sort of crazy fun that comes with it. It was hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing. I haven't had so much fun in ages. Rumors say it will come a number two, but I do not know. It will be hard beating this one. <br /><br />recommended to everyone! It is a must see film. I was suppose to see it at the cinema, but I had work at the times it where shown. And been trying to rent it for a month, but all the time rented out. Got it today on DVD. Well worth it.

In a time when Hollywood is making money by showing our weaknesses, despair, crime, drugs, and war, along comes this film which reminds us the concept of the 'Indomitable Spirit'. If you are feeling beaten down, this movie will free your mind and set you soaring. We all know how tough life can be, sometime we need to be reminded that persistence and courage will get us through. That's what this film did for me and I hope it will for you.

Yes, I am a romantic of sorts who likes musicals and comedy and this fit the bill! Julie Andrews gives a mesmerizing performance at the beginning and end of this film with the 'Whistling in the Dark' production number. The sedate-to-outrageous number that she performs in the middle of the story when she believes that Rock Hudson has been seeing a dancing/call girl is eye-popping and will certainly make you giggle.<br /><br />I only wish that this film could be found in video or DVD as I would surely purchase it in a heartbeat for my home library!

I'm not going to say that this movie is horrible, because I have seen worse, but it's not even halfway decent. <br /><br />The plot is very confusing. I couldn't really figure out what was happening and where things were going. When the movie was over, I was left scratching my head. I watched through to the end of the credits to see if they had something after them that may clear things up, but once the credits were over, that was it. I felt like I was jarred from one weak plot point to another throughout the whole movie, with little or no transition between the two. <br /><br />Character development is very shallow. I couldn't figure out when somebody was angry or had a grudge against someone. I couldn't tell if half of the characters were just supposed to be drunk, stoned, mentally challenged or they just had a bad actor to portray them. This film seems to be based around stereotypes (to it's credit, they are hard to avoid using when you are making a film about a singer in a rock band), which SHOULD make character development easier, since so many other films have already illustrated the suffering of an abused child, or the trials of a heroin addict trying to come clean. Stereotypes are easy to depict, which would explain why so many bad films tend to overuse stereotypical characters. This film, on the other hand, uses stereotypical characters left and right, but then tries to keep them as incomprehensible as possible.<br /><br />Another problem with the characters is that they seemed to be dismissed with no explanation. I guess that's OK because so little time was spent developing the characters that I really didn't get a chance to know any of them, so I never really missed any of them.<br /><br />And last but not least was Sadie's singing. It's awful. The music backing her up is not prize winner, but it is usually drowned out by the screeches that are released from Sadie's vocal cords. I swear that there's one point in the movie where she sings a song for at least 10 minutes. I seriously thought I was going to have to turn it off during this howl-a-thon.<br /><br />As a whole, this movie is confusing. Characters are ill-developed, Georgia's acting is wooden and stiff, Sadie's character is yanked from one bad situation to another, with no back story or explanation. The music was unbearable, and I can think of no good reasons to see this film unless you have a thirst for cinematic pain.

i am amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle!

I love this movie, though I don't like how they picture Egyptians, being an Egyptian citizen myself! that's why it earns an eight out of 10.<br /><br />The relationship between Augustin and the leopard is awkward, and of course because of loneliness and living in that cave for quite so long, he develops a kind of insanity and passion to that leopard.<br /><br />A very touching scene when the leopard dies, watch Augustin's reaction.. <br /><br />All in all I find it enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to reading the short story by Balzac.

Favela Rising is a documentary about the slums of Rio, the favelas, specifically the most violent one, Vigário Geral. According to this film, a lot more kids have died violently in Rio's favelas over the last decade or so than in Israel/Palestine during the same period -- a fact astonishing if true, which shows how under-recognized this social problem is in the rest of the world. This is an important topic, especially for those who see hope in grassroots efforts to marshal the neediest and most at risk through a vibrant cultural program. This is a compelling documentary, if occasionally marred by a somewhat too personality-based version of events and by grainy digital video and film that sometimes may make you think you need to have your eyes examined.<br /><br />Drug lords rule in the favelas and gun-toting teenage boys are the main drug dealers, like in parts of Colombia. Fernando Meirelles' movie City of God/Cidade de Deus has been accused of celebrating violence (Cidade de Deus is another of Rio's many favelas). But the early section of Favela Rising shows that in fact favela boys do celebrate violence and want to deal drugs where the money and the action are. It's cool to carry a gun there, cool to work as a drug trafficker: it's fifty times more profitable than the earnings available by other means.<br /><br />Mochary first discovered the AfroReggae movement and its leaders Anderson Sá and José Junior while visiting Rio for a conference and quickly persuaded his friend and mentor Zimbalist to quit his job and come down to help make a film with his own promise to fund it. Sá's eloquence and charisma and a startling twist in his life make him the center of the film and its chief narrator, but like the favelas themselves the film teems with other people. No doubt about the fact that Sá is a remarkable leader, organizer, and artist.<br /><br />Vigário Geral is compared to Bosnia: shooting there was very dangerous. Anderson Sá's friendship and protection and caution and diplomacy in the shooting enabled the filmmakers to gain access and shoot detailed footage of their subject matters while (mostly: there were close calls) avoiding any serious confrontations with drug lords or drug-dealing cops. They also trained boys to use cameras and left them there on trips home. That resulted in 10% of the footage, including rare shots of violent incidents including police beatings. It's hard for an outsider to keep track of police massacres in Rio. There was one in the early 1990's that looms over the story and inspired Sá, who ended his own early involvement in drug trafficking to lead his cultural movement. The cops are all over the drug trade and if anybody doesn't like that the ill trained police paramilitaries come in (often wearing black ski masks) and shoot up a neighborhood, killing a lot of innocents.<br /><br />This is pretty much the picture we get in Meirelles' City of God, except that this time Sá, Junior, and the other guys come in, starting in Vigário Geral but spreading out eventually to a number of other favelas to give percussion classes that attract dozens of youth -- girls as well as boys. Their AfroReggae (Grupo Cultural AfroReggae or GCAR) program, formed in 1993, is a new alternative way of life for young black men in the Rio ghettos. It leads them to leave behind smoking, alcohol, and drugs (that's the rule) to explode into rap, song, percussion, and gymnastics in expressive, galvanic performances. Eventually the best of the performers led by Sá wind up appearing before big local audiences with local producers, and their Banda AfroReggae has an international recording contract.<br /><br />Other centers and groups have been created by or through the GCAR over the years in Vigário Geral and other favelas to seek the betterment of youth by providing training and staging performances of music, capoeira, theater, hiphop and dance at GCAR centers.<br /><br />The performance arts aren't everything, just the focal point. GCAR is also a movement for broader social change Gathering public awareness through such performances, the centers also provide training in information (newspaper, radio, Internet, e-mail links), hygiene and sex education, to seek to bridge gaps between rich and poor, black and white, and to offer workshops in audio-visual work, including production of documentaries. The program is currently active in four other favelas.<br /><br />There are many scenes of favela street and home life in Favela Rising and they look very much like the images in City of God with the important difference that the focus and outcome are very, very much more positive. Not that it isn't an uphill battle. And the corruption of the police, the inequities of the social system, and the indifference of the general population of Brazil are not directly addressed by any of this. But there's a scene where Sá talks to some young kids in another favela, cynical boys not enthusiastic about AfroReggae and determined to work in the drug trade as Sá himself did as a boy. Sá doesn't seem to be convincing any of them despite pointing out that traffickers don't make it to the age of fifty. But we learn that the most negative boy in this group, Richard Morales, joined the movement five months later. There's also the account of a freak accident that disabled Sá, but with a positive outcome.<br /><br />It would be great if the images were sharper and clearer and if the story were edited down a little, but this is vibrant, inspiring material and represents committed, risk-taking documentary film-making and it's nice that Favela Rising has been included in seven film festivals and won a number of awards, including Best New Documentary Filmmaker at the Tribeca Film Festival. It's currently being shown at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London. However, a wide art house audience in the US seems somewhat unlikely.<br /><br />Included in the SFIFF 2006.

Saw this at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, over three years ago. I went in with no expectations since Christopher Nolan was a no-name at the time, but it sounded interesting and turned out to be one of the best things I saw at that festival. It worked well on the big screen, with the technique of cutting the scenes out of sequence adding to the mood. Mr.Nolan gave a good account of its making at the end, enough to put anybody off starting out as a film-maker! I liked it better than Memento although this was, perhaps, due to the lower expectations. And the fact that it was more of an art house movie.

I watched this expecting to see the usual British stiff upper lip stereotypes and was surprised to find the dialogue remarkably natural and tinged with black humour. It was more like Eastenders Goes to Sea than In Which We Serve. The scenes during the approach and attack are remarkably realistic in their depiction of a fighting ship and the stuff ups and banter among the ship's company (well at least based on my service in the 1970s). Some of the throwaway lines are very witty ('I'm not joining the Band of Hope just to please some greasy fish fryer!). My only complaint is that they didn't show what happened to the Irish coxswain and his bride to be, or the tattooed PO and his 'I Love Arabella' tattoo!

Don't pay any attention to the rave reviews of this film here. It is the worst Van Damme film and one of the worst of any sort I have ever seen. It would appeal to somebody with no depth whatever who requires nothing more than gunfire and explosions to be entertained.<br /><br />Seeing that this is directed by Peter Hyams it has made me realise that Peter has no talent as a director, but is very good at filming explosions and the like. However, movies need other elements as well; for example, a story. This one didn't have one. This might explain the awfulness of some of Mr. Hyams' more recent films, hardly any better than this one, really.<br /><br />One can't help wondering how some people ever were put behind a camera.

We don't know why this extraordinary film was never made available officially on DVD... Anthony Quinn's performance alone makes this a must-see. There are relatively few films in which an actor identifies so profoundly with his character, a phenomenon always unique for us, moviegoers.<br /><br />But Quinn's powerful portrayal of an innocent Romanian, literally dragged out of his house and everyday life by forces he cannot comprehend, is only part of what makes this film great. The script is based on a book published in Paris by a Romanian priest who fled the Communist take-over of his country, and the film succeeds to go deep into a little known area of East-European history. Told as a succession of Kafka-esquire twists of fate, the misadventures of Johann Moritz (told openly and honestly, without any of the political correctness currently so precious in Hollywood) are in fact a eulogy for the lost innocence of the Romanian people... it is devilishly ironic that this eulogy is signed by a French director, working with the American money of an Italian producer, and overseeing a multinational cast fronted by an extraordinary Mexican-born thespian.<br /><br />I've seen mentions of VCDs of this film in various Asian internet stores, and I was fortunate to take possession of a digital recording of this film, broadcast on the British version of TCM. But it's a shame that 'The 25th Hour' isn't anywhere on the future DVD release map of MGM studios.

<br /><br />I take issue with the other reviewer's comments for the simple reason that this is a MYSTERY FILM, not a supernatural one! It is not the only film to have a seemingly 'supernatural' explanation ('vampires'), but turns out to be a very mundance one.<br /><br />Other films that come to mind are Edgar Wallace's 'Before Dawn' and the (more famous) 'Mark of the Vampire'. <br /><br />The film does a WONDERFUL job in creating a very 'spooky atmosphere', similar DRACULA, when Renfield meets the Count on the staircase of his castle, or in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, when the two people look thru the windows of the castle ruins and see a 'corpse' playing an organ, while Luna descends using wings! VERY surreal!<br /><br />If one likes these (often silent) atmospheric touches, THIS film is a MUST!<br /><br />Norm Vogel

Do a title search on Randolph Scott and TRAIL STREET is the one film missing from the list you've seen. One of 4 films Scott made at RKO during his prime (1947) the others are always easy to get. Liberal, Kansas is just southwest of Dodge City and is a powder-keg about to explode between the trail-riders who drive the longhorns into Trail Street, the town's main street, and the sod-busters who feed our bellies. It'll take a strong man like Bat Masterson to step between the two groups and bring the town to order. More I won't say, except that Scott movies usually have just one pretty girl and this one has three. RANDOLPH SCOTT always played men you could look up to for their sense of honor, courage, level-headedness and willingness to do the right thing. Fifty years ago parents could send their kids to a Scott movie with confidence they'd learn positive values. ROBERT RYAN co-stars in this film, playing a good guy for a change. In real life, RYAN was one of the many WORLD WAR II HEROS who starred in America's movies. How sad what we get these days. George Clooney teaches our young that we ought sympathize with suicide bombers, while Steven Spielberg teaches there is no moral difference between the Olympic athletes murdered in 1972 in Munich and the Palestinian terrorists who killed them. Hollywood 2005 derives their moral compass from too much cocaine and too much commitment to the wacky left. I wonder how all this plays out in Liberal, Kansas. Liberal, after all, was not a dirty word 150 years ago when the city was named.

I disagree with Dante portraying the Democrat-supporting zombies as creatures with an average IQ of 23. I do believe their behaviour should reflect a lower IQ than that, something in the order of a Pelosi IQ... A single-digit figure, please.<br /><br />The MOH series is quite uneven, and this is the very worst episode. Dante, yet another mindless Hollywood liberal (or an apolitical nerd who sucks up to the Leftist establishment in order to re-kindle his pitiful career?), must have finally realized that his directorial pursuits had been stuck in a low gear for nearly two decades now, hence came up with this cringe-inducing, unsubtle, left-wing 'satire' of the Bush administration, Republicans, and capitalism. Perhaps he felt he hadn't been overtly political before. He wouldn't exactly be the first no-talent to use asinine political propaganda to further his career, when all else fails. The maker of turds such as 'Piranha', 'The Howling', and 'Matinee', Dante has been as useful a contributor to the horror genre as Adolf Hitler had been to world peace.<br /><br />TH uses lowest-common-denominator humour, cheap and predictable gags which even the bluest of all blue-collar union members wouldn't have trouble understanding. Or have you ever seen a clever, subtle, intelligent liberal satire? Populist manure has the basest of all messages, hence the language and manner in which this message is communicated has to be as simple and basic as Sean Penn's name. And what better people to send this message to the popcorn-munching sheep than a couple of cocaine-sniffing Tinseltown losers who've all fallen so low that they're forced to write for TV...<br /><br />I don't want political propaganda, either Left or Right, in any type of movie. But placing it in horror - of all genres - is a testament to the endless stupidity that reigns so supreme among Hollywood's anti-intelligentsia. So vapid was Dante that he even failed to notice the hilarious suggestion that zombies would vote Democrat... (That's what you get for finishing a movie school: not a source of wisdom or useful knowledge by any stretch of the imagination.)

Yowsa! If you REALLY want some ACTION, check out the babes and bombs on this non-stop thriller! Veteran star MARTIN SHEEN leads a trio of supermodels on a mission to stop nuclear terrorism... but director Dean Hamilton doesn't let this heavy plotline get in the way of massive doses of TEENSY-SWIMSUIT scenes, jiggly beach jogs, hubba-hubba hot tubs and the like! Want action? You'll get more of it here than in PEARL HARBOR. Want babes? You'll get an eyeful every two minutes. Want more? Go out and BUY THIS VIDEO! Yowsa, Yowsa, Yowsa! That's some mighty spicy meatballs!!!

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

Pickup On South Street is one of the most brilliant movies ever made. An example of the directing: When Candy (Jean Peters) starts going through her purse and notices her wallet is missing, an alarm goes off in the background in the building she's in -- as if it's an alarm going off in her head. It's not cartoon-like -- it's subtly woven into the background in a way that strikes you on a subconscious level until you've seen the film a few times and it just 'clicks' that there's an alarm bell going off when she starts frantically going through her bag.<br /><br />Richard Widmark is way on top of his game as a smart-alec -- he's really great -- but the highlight performance of the film was the first scene for 'Moe,' the street peddler/informer, played by Thelma Ritter. Later, in her apartment, you are not seeing a movie -- you're seeing a real person. I've never seen anyone 'act' so real I felt like I was looking into a real room until Ritter's performance -- right down to the way her hair stuck out a bit when she removed her hat. <br /><br />About a million other things just *worked,* from the way Lightning Louie picks up money with his chopsticks to the way Candy's jewelry clicks when she flicks Moe's hand away from her brooch, to the way Moe gets the dollars and change from the police captain across the FBI guy's chest -- and even the way the captain opens his filing cabinet, like he's been doing it in that way in that room for many years. 'Pickup On South Street' is detailed moves (directing) with consummate performances (acting) and superb now-nostalgic visuals of the day, such as the panel truck, the boards leading to the shack out on the water, the dumbwaiter, -- and the unforgettable place Skip stashes his pocket pickings. Wonderful stuff.<br /><br />'Pickup On South Street' is also one of the few movies where, even though the characters aren't perfect, you do care about them -- perhaps because they have been somewhat branded by their pasts in ways that are hard to escape: Skip as a 'three-time loser' and Candy as a youngish woman who has 'knocked around' a lot. When these people behave a little more badly than you'd expect, it's in sort of novel ways that make it seem you're looking in at people you'd never otherwise imagine -- and yet you know that they are possible because the actors make them so recognizably human.

Neither the total disaster the UK critics claimed nor the misunderstood masterpiece its few fanboys insist, Revolver is at the very least an admirable attempt by Guy Ritchie to add a little substance to his conman capers. But then, nothing is more despised than an ambitious film that bites off more than it can chew, especially one using the gangster/con-artist movie framework. As might be expected from Luc Besson's name on the credits as producer, there's a definite element of 'Cinema de look' about it: set in a kind of realistic fantasy world where America and Britain overlap, it looks great, has a couple of superbly edited and conceived action sequences and oozes style, all of which mark it up as a disposable entertainment. But Ritchie clearly wants to do more than simply rehash his own movies for a fast buck, and he's spent a lot of time thinking and reading about life, the universe and everything. If anything its problem is that he's trying to throw in too many influences (a bit of Machiavelli, a dash of Godard, a lot of the Principles of Chess), motifs and techniques, littering the screen with quotes: the film was originally intended to end with three minutes of epigrams over photos of corpses of mob victims, and at times it feels as if he never read a fortune cookie he didn't want to turn into a movie. Rather than a commercial for Kabbalism, it's really more a mixture of the overlapping principles of commerce, chess and confidence trickery that for the most part pulls off the difficult trick of making the theosophy accessible while hiding the film's central (somewhat metaphysical) con.<br /><br />The last third is where most of the problems can be found as Jason Statham takes on the enemy (literally) within with lots of ambitious but not always entirely successful crosscutting within the frame to contrast people's exterior bravado with their inner fear and anger, but it's got a lot going for it all the same. Not worth starting a new religion over, but I'm surprised it didn't get a US distributor. Maybe they found Ray Liotta's intentionally fake tan just too damn scary?

With a movie called 'Gayniggers from Outer Space' how could you go wrong? Just throw in some over the top stereotypes for the characters, use the Village People as the main suppliers for the soundtrack, and throw in tons of gay-gags. Plot is unimportant. Too bad, this film doesn't contain any of this and every joke misses the spot. The characters all look alike apart from the german gaynigger, one or two jokes work, the rest fails.<br /><br />The title made me laugh and I was prepared to laugh even more about the film. My expectation were to high apparently.

This movie is simply excellent. For some reason it wasn't a success at the box office in India. In New York, however, I have yet to come across a person who disliked this movie. This is definitely the funniest movie to come out of India. Everyone gives a good performance; Amir Khan; however, just takes over and puts the movie over the top.

I heard legends about this 'film' (quotes used so as not to insult films) for a while, so when I finally got the DVD with it, I impatiently started watching it. By the end, I *had* to fast forward through just a few of the most moronic, ineptly made, nonsensical scenes of this pointless childish mess to make it end quicker.<br /><br />This may be the worst film I've even 'touched' - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. 'Manson Family' makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a 'plot' it has, the revoltingly bad 'acting', the painful, inept 'directing', the sets and props with their 'dollar ninety nine' look (I especially 'loved' the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out 'brains' will love this 'film' (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various 'Worst 50' lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen 'Superbabies' or its sequel, but I strongly wish that 'Manson' joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many '1' votes - and so much the better!

- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.<br /><br />- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.<br /><br />- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.<br /><br />- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead.

This film was total rubbish. I was sitting watching this absolutely furious that this was funded. They most definitely spent all their budget on the special FX rather than the script writer and director AND some of the actors.<br /><br />First the acting was bland and rubbish. The story was not relatable to the audience enough. Rather than being from the peoples perspective of the storm, the narrative was told more from government figures and the army, which really isn't a way to connect to them as most of us hate politicians anyway. The writer attempted to add a human element to the unrealistic characters by adding the little subplot about the father and son, which failed completely.<br /><br />As for the directing...oh god, his techniques to try and create tension and unease are repetitive and over the top. The sped up camera movements and then the sudden flash bolt pauses on a characters face when something horrendous has happened was pathetic.<br /><br />The only reason I watched it till the end was to see the special FX. Which is a bad thing as special FX shouldn't make the film it should only amplify the story and experience. There was no story.<br /><br />I really wouldn't bother watching this, total trash and an embarrassment to the British film industry.

The best film about marriage and family. This is a very interesting reflections to the couples that will be come to the dangerous and paradoxical fascinating world of marriage and family. This decision could be the better or the worst in our lives and the life of our kids. The real intrusion or help of 'friends' -or executioner if we leave-. The real role of families: they can help or they can destroy us. The mad priest who possibly is not much mad telling what could happen according the statistics and the reality. A couple who thinks in a 'special' marriage, live a painful story in their future own history.<br /><br />Who likes contract marriage? Nobody, after the priest tells their own history… if they leave the future in another hands, if they don't know WHAT is the marriage. That the problems are true, that the life demand a real engage, guaranties, from each one. That the real victims of the divorce are kids, with real name –Andrea in the film- or names. That the abortion is only an easy exit: sadness, regrets and unhappiness will be there after abortion. That the state and social security thinks every time less in a real problems of the families. The gossip of the 'friends', the infidelity because of weakness and desperation of Steffania because Tomasso lives his life as if he were alone.<br /><br />Maybe someone could think that this film is a pessimistic film, but not. Steffania and Tomasso, in the deep of their hearts, they like a beautiful marriage and family, if not, Why they like marriage? A truly and beautiful marriage depends only of the couple: of each one of their decisions, of each one actions in their lives. The family could be a place where each one feel loved because being his or her, only by existing. The screenplay is wonderful. The performances are great: Steffania and Tomasso, ¡the almost cynical priest! An excellent direction and script. The colors and the management of the cameras, superb.

First of all, I think the casting and acting were excellent. The problem is the story. There is basically no story here worth telling and thus basically no movie here. Larry McMurtry has done Lonesome Dove and I can't fault the original, though it probably didn't need sequels. He did Hud with Paul Newman, which is one of my favorite movies. Mellencamp is supposed to be a country singer, but the only song I hear him sing is an old Buck Owens song. The movie makes a big deal out of chicken farming. Mellencamp's character has a good wife, and it's utterly stupid of him to stray from her. The incident with riding in the sliding cage is utterly stupid. Maybe people do that for fun in some parts of the country, but I never heard of it.

<br /><br />'step aside for hollywood veterans?' (the wayan brothers were 'asked') thats what hollyweird demanded and thats what it got. However, like so many of its recent decisions this one was a stupendous mistake.<br /><br />The director is SO out of touch with todays audience, attempting to bring back physical pratfalls and gags in place of funny dialogue is just a DISASTER. I knew it, the audience knew it and the CAST knew it.<br /><br />What a shame, why did they EVER consider changing directors? Not only that but the two Wayan brothers played as two of four primary characters, without them its just a farce and a sad one.<br /><br />SP<br /><br />

To get in touch with the beauty of this film pay close attention to the sound track, not only the music, but the way all sounds help to weave the imagery. How beautifully the opening scene leading to the expulsion of Gino establishes the theme of moral ambiguity! Note the way music introduces the characters as we are led inside Giovanna's marriage. Don't expect to find much here of the political life of Italy in 1943. That's not what this is about. On the other hand, if you are susceptible to the music of images and sounds, you will be led into a word that reaches beyond neo-realism. By the end of the film we there are moments Antonioni-like landscape that has more to do with the inner life of the characters than with real places. This is one of my favorite Visconti films.

Dark Harvest is about a group of friends that go to a farm(it belongs to one of the friends relatives or something) for a getaway. But there are killer scarecrows lurking there(there was something about a curse in there too but I forgot what that was about).<br /><br />The acting in this movie is awful, I don't know what the director was thinking when he was casting actors and actresses. The script is the same story as the acting 'awful'(this statement coming up is very obvious but..) if there was better acting and a better script this could have turned out 'okay'.<br /><br />The directing stunk too, I see no potential in this guy's future. After all these negatives this movie still maintains a 'fun' factor that bumps it up to a two. The last plus is they don't use CGI! My overall thoughts on this film are it's bad, real bad, but so bad it's 'fun' so it gets a 2/10

I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!<br /><br />The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?<br /><br />Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.<br /><br />I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.<br /><br />(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)

This was a cute movie until the ending. The ending was merely one more despicable effort to emasculate men and empower women at their expense. The girl refused to listen to reason and logic and used her passive/aggressive nature to control and impose her will on the guy who ultimately yielded his power and control over the relationship to her. It is not by chance that she was sitting behind the driver's wheel in the car as they drove away at the end after he had to beg her and plead with her to take him back. This movie is a victory for all women who think they should be in charge of all men and in control of their relationships with them. It was a despicable movie for that reason.

Irrespective of the accuracy of facts, Bandit Queen is a true story, its true because the themes it deals with hold as much truth today as they did way back in 1994. This movie is violent, powerful and thought provoking.The protagonist is a woman of flesh and blood, whose adversity brought out the best(or worst) out of her. Keeping the subjectivity aside, there is no doubt that Phoolan's character from a young girl of 8, who is married off by her father to clear a debt(pun intended), to a gang leader who goes on to become a leader of the lower caste, has evolved into a champion in her own right. Her portrayal is so powerful that the viewer is even willing to forgive her for a massacre.<br /><br />I can understand if the western audience is not able to appreciate this masterpiece, Bandit Queen needs to be 'studied' in the Indian context, and not just checked out in stereotypes. I may not be able to sell it on its universal appeal but its certainly a must watch for the Indian audience, its a shame that the movie had a delayed, overtly censored release in India.<br /><br />Bandit Queen is the story of a woman who fought against two odds in India, being a woman and that too a lower caste, her rebellious nature and inability to just give in caused her the most horrible experiences in life, which only went on to strengthen her into a self proclaimed goddess. She responded to violence with violence and dint become the submissive woman society wanted her to be. Call it divine justice or judiciary failure, had she killed a single person she would have been hanged, she killed 24 and got revered, respected and glorified.<br /><br />P.S # Whoever found her character 'psychotic', needs to be sodomized at 8, gangraped by 10 men at a go and paraded naked. Then they should be asked- How normal do they feel?

'Balance of Terror' is still one of the best Star Trek episodes ever made. It was inspired by the film 'Enemy Below' (starring Robert Mitchum), a movie that deals with a cat-and-mouse game between two captains during World War II. In this episode, Captain Kirk and his crew play similar game with a Romulan vessel. This is the program that famously introduces the war-hungry Romulans, who are distant relatives of the Vulcans. It is an incredibly suspenseful episode, tightly constructed for maximum effect. It is also interesting to see how the episode contains a series of subplots that add extra layers of meaning to the story. Mark Lenard makes his Star Trek debut as the Romulan Captain (he will later play Spock's father Ambassador Sarek). A must-see episode!

Kate Gulden, played by one of the most nominated actresses of the last decade of this century, and also one of the most talented actresses Meryl Streep(Out of Africa). She is wonderful is every part that she plays. The Yale graduate is the pride and joy of the American Cinema.<br /><br />Kate's health is deteriorating and her husband, George, role well developed by brilliant actor and also Oscar winner, William Hurt (Smoke, Kiss of the Spider Woman) has a hard time with the deteriorating health of his one true thing, and seeks his daughter's help. The poor daughter, Ellen Gulden, Renée Zellweger (Jerry Maguire) has way too much expected of her. No breaks! The story takes a very realistic view on the illness of a parent. In this movie the only daughter has to put her life on hold to care for the needs of others. There is always one in every family who faces that kind of responsibility. Ellen is angry the beginning of the movie, but as time passes she ends up understanding her mothers' life time dedication to her family. She even asks her mom: How do you do his, every day, in and out and nobody notices it? That is what women do, a lot of what I call invisible work. Moreover we clean, we fix, we mend, we stretch, we celebrate, we are the best friends, we are confidants, the mistress, outreachers, disciplinarians, sensitive. Some of us, like both women in this movie, have the perfect education, are the psychological pillar for the entire family and also do all that invisible work! That is Kate Ellen, and many women in our society. Many of us have already gone through that stage of life when our parents age and died. I have been there. They just went too young. I have given my parents my thanks, but I never understood them as well as when I had to play their roles, and had to walk in their shoes. This movie mirrors the reality of life. Perhaps it is sad, but that is how life is, at times. George a Professor at Harvard is complicated person, who appears to think that his work is more important than everybody else, and has a very 'master/servant' mentality toward the women in his life. He is not strong enough to cope. If you want to see good acting and the reality of life do not miss this movie. Favorite Scenes: The restaurant coming to Kate, violins and all. The making of a table out of broken china. That I so symbolic! We are all broken vessels! Favorite Quotes: George: 'It is only by going uphill, that you realize that you are really going downhill.' George 'You have a Harvard education but where is your heart?' <br /><br />

I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a 'kids movie'? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.

I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it.

Can't grade this very well, because I can't say I liked it. But it is the story that bothered me, not the realization of the film. The acting, directing, atmosphere, music were all good. It's just that after you see a bunch of people doing things you can't truly relate to, the movie ends. It is educational in the way that it shows the horrors of war as seen from home and the way feelings don't need to make any sense at all and still be strong, but that's about it.<br /><br />The plot covers a period of a few years in which the poet Dylan Thomas is taken under the roof of a former ex-girlfriend. He is married, brings his wife and later the kid, while the ex (Knightley) marries some other guy. But the tension is there, Dylan is a self obsessed jerk and the new husband comes back home from the war with a slight case of PTSD. Add in some pretty temperamental characters and you have your hands full.<br /><br />Bottom line: you have to be 'in the mood' to like this film. The hard part is defining this mood. I don't think I've ever been in it yet. Ever. So it is probably better watched by adults with a grasp on weird complex human behaviour and maybe a curiosity about Dylan Thomas.

I really didn't see this one coming. Roy Andersson had me pegged out, I am the perfect sucker for a static camera (long live King Borowczyk!) and I was laughing hysterically for the first fifteen minutes of the film, he hit me straight between the eyes. You have to be a brilliant man to make self-pity hilarious. Andersson reminds me of the third mate on the Pequod in Moby Dick, Flask, a man who took the whole of life to be a practical joke that the good lord Himself is playing on us. And the web of egotism in this movie is truly hilarious.<br /><br />The level of satire is at fever pitch, you have one deluded self-pitying dreamer harp on about the cruelty of the world and then totally ignore a spiritual self-reflection crying out in agony. The very depths of egotism are plumbed. I really never thought it possible to go further than Bergman's 'The Silence' in this respect. However the grotesqueness of the self-love and self-regard, by every single character in this film, is staggering. We are shown an existence where the talentless and the idle rail against a world they believe has been unjust towards them, they truly are legends in their own living rooms. The human beings in this film make self-deception and self-delusion a great artform! <br /><br />Only one woman in the film appears to have any sort of understanding of what is going on. An old woman who refuses to leave a chapel, knelt down praying for the forgiveness of all mankind, her speech is the most electrifying condemnation of the modern world I have ever heard. She reveals through her prayers that what is wrong with the world is not to be fixed by mere tinkering, there are not a just a few faults, there is an abyss of corruption that can only be mended by immolation, and judgement day. Watching this movie puts me in the mind of a naked monk, stood waist deep in a cold river at midnight screaming out a thousand Kyrie eleisons for the sins of humanity. Another grand jape is that it is clear that her prayers are futile, and in fact she is stopping everyone going home at closing time.<br /><br />This is not a film for the smug, no-one is spared, no idols are left on the altar, no one group of humans is harangued to the glory of another group. Never has there been a greater more transcendent more astonishingly beautiful summation of our sins. It is a film for the end of the world, it is the grand jest, the great hideous practical joke of human life! <br /><br />From the catalogue of images it is too difficult to pick a favourite, I slapped my thigh and almost fell off my chair in the cinema, screaming with laughter as a man attempted to pull the tablecloth from under a set service. I won't spoil what happens, but the suspense builds up, and something truly unexpected occurs. It is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen in a cinema. I am quite reserved and I just couldn't control myself: that is the measure of the greatness of this film.<br /><br />The shooting of 'You, the Living' is impeccably formalist. We are shown the palette of an artist, dingy browns, yellows, greys, and sky blues set alive by the shock of luminous brass textures. There is never a tone out of place, it's like an hour and a half of symphonic Whistlerian colour-meld. The obsession that must have gone into putting that colour scheme in place is extraordinary. And no shot is wasted, as with all great movies, there is not a spare inch of celluloid.<br /><br />Perhaps the best film I've ever seen.

Christopher Nolan had his goals set on Following in a very narrow direction, and in that direction he pulled off something that reminded me of the kind of great little 'poverty-row' movies the likes of Ullmer directed back in the 40s. Only this time, he's able to implement touches of homage- things like black and white photography (a given due to the shoe-string budget but also essential to the dark crevices these characters inhabit) and casting of the actors (the John Doe lead, the slick male counterpart, and the beautiful-in-a-gritty way femme fatale)- while keeping it in the realm of the 90s underground indie where for several thousand dollars and specific choices in locations and music and such anything could be possible. That, and as well in the film-noir mood Nolan also puts together a cunning web of a plot, maybe even more so than Memento. Where the latter was a work of a psychology unfolding by way of a plot enriched by looking to the past inch by inch, here the non-linear structure serves the purpose of showing how far someone like Bill can go through as dark a path as Cobb, only in an environment where keeping on your toes is not for someone who's not really twisted and into the deeper mind games Cobb is.<br /><br />Of course, the whole act of following someone becomes the main thrust of the story, and going into it I wasn't even sure where it would lead, if it might be some kind of stream of consciousness ala Slacker where Nolan would lead his character along to one urban British person to another. But the establishment of the ties of Bill to Cobb are done in a quick and excellent way, as we see right when Cobb approaches Bill at the café to ask what he's doing following him tells almost all we need to know about both- that, and the first robbery he brings him along for. What seems to soon be a good score on the horizon is really all one big set-up by Cobb and his lady (just called 'The Blonde', maybe a too-obvious homage to noir, but why carp). But this is revealed in a way that actually truly had me guessing, as the manipulation of the narrative worked all the more to arouse questions not so much of why but of how. The density is brought out all the greater due to the actors understanding of their essential points as characters, with Alex Haw being brilliant as a true sociopath who can barely mask his 'deep' ideas about what it is to really take pleasure in a burglary, and Theobald with that demeanor of someone who can never be as smart as he is in what he really does, but is more intelligent in that naive way that stands no chance in the dank environment such as this; Russell almost makes it too easy, even with a face that would send Ana Savage shaking her head.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Nolan is also on the ball with his style as a cameraman, keeping nothing in that doesn't add to ambiance and suspense, with the fade-in/fade-outs not too quick to leave a lasting impression, but enough to add to the 'this-could-lead-anywhere' logic of the script. He follows it in hand-held form as if he knows where his limitations lie, and yet is fantastic at keeping the essentials: close-ups when need be (one I loved is Russell's face in a small mirror), and a fairly simple techno track that never detracts. Sometimes, as mentioned, the line between seeing something in 'present-day' and seeing something that is as everlasting as a solid pulp story of low-level criminals with mind-games and moral ambiguity is always never totally clear, which for me is practically irresistible in its dark way. Simply put, this is one of the great calling cards I've seen from a filmmaker in recent years, and should hopefully be something that future fans of Nolan's other work can look forward to to discovering. Or even to those who think that noir has gone to the rapid-editing and big-gun-firing dogs of the mainstream (even in independent films) it's a bright little 71 minutes.

This movie made by the NFBC was made in honor of the Montreal Canadians dynasty years in the 50's,60's and 70's. My 5th grade teacher played this in class in honor of my 11th birthday in 1987 and also to celebrate my return from a serious facial injury in 1986. I have been a Canadians fan for 29 of my 30 years of life. on a scale of 1-10, I give this film a 117. All hockey fans should see this as I hope it will be placed in the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and shown at the Bell Centre in Montreal or here in Edmonton at Rexall Place. Watch this film with your family it is a great movie. I also recommend the book in both French and English. Go Habs Go.

Stone has tried another type of movie. Any Given Sunday falls short of a the above average The Last Boy Scout and the below average Against all Odds. Stone can be fantastic, see The Doors, Natural Born Killers or Platoon but he can also repeat himself see Nixon or Born on the Fourth of July. His real brilliance is realized in the Michael Caine perfection, The Hand.

I rated this movie a 3 and that was generous. The scenery is ponderous and gaudy, the acting for the most part is terrible. I do think Peter O'Toole did a good job of acting (Tiberius), but he must have been mortified when he saw the final cut of the movie. John Gielgud, howsoever brief his appearance in the movie, still seemed to be playing a role from Hamlet. The hard core pornography parts were neither erotic nor did they do much to further the story. Okay Malcolm McDowell had a nice butt and the guy who played Macro was handsome. The guy who played Claudius, looked more like the traditional depictions of Nero and was certainly at odds with Robert Graves' picture of Claudius. The climactic (?) assassination of Caligula, wife and child is inaccurate in that it shows him after death lying on stairs in an open-air area, when in fact he was assassinated in the underground passage on the palatine hill which ran along the front of the Domus Flaviana that still exists today. There are places in this movie where virtually anything drew my attention away from it--merciful distractions. If you want history, read Suetonius or Tacitus, if you want pornography and sadism, watch Passolini's 'Salo', but by all means stay away from this movie.

Easily Lucio Fulci's most respected film, 'Don't Torture a Duckling' is highly renowned for it's edgy subject matter, gruesome imagery, and strong storyline. Terror befalls a small Italian village as young boys begin turning up murdered, engulfing the confused and determined authorities plus a dedicated detective in mystery. Was it the creepy hermit? The spastic voodoo witch? One of the hookers? The rich girl? Someone else? Contrary to most fan's frequent representation on the film's violent content - I consider it much more plot driven; featuring only one real moment of memorable bloodshed (involving chains and boards). In no aspect does this detract from the positive attributes this movie delivers. Fulci proves himself fully capable of dishing out one hell of a dark and disturbing giallo with childing killing, black magic, and of course a nice full set o' knockers... Though I'm particularly more fond of Fulci's 'Lizard in a Woman's Skin' and 'New York Ripper', 'Don't Torture a Duckling' dominates the giallo genre as a moody and compelling murder mystery!

Crackerjack is a simple but feelgood movie where the good guys are very good and the bad guys are very bad and the central character is tempted by both sides.<br /><br />The combination of the central character being played by Mick Malloy and the central setting being the local lawn bowls clubs drew an unusually broad crowd ranging from large numbers of teenagers to large numbers of senior citizens - and all laughed at the comedy.<br /><br />As would be expected of a movie with Mick Malloy and Judith Lucy there was quite a bit of swearing, but it was not overdone and the audience I sat with certainly enjoyed it!<br /><br />Mick Malloy did a good job as the lazy bloke who joined the bowls club (three times) simply to get parking spaces (one for himself and two for leasing to others at a premium) but who has everything fall down on him when he is required to play or lose his membership.<br /><br />Judith Lucy does a fine job as his local journalist/love-interest and there are fabulous performances from Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson, Monica Maughan, Lois Ramsey and many others.<br /><br />John Clarke's dour role as the bad guy is not one of his funniest but he gives a solid performance.<br /><br />The not so subtle swipes at pokies provide a bit of a serious note to this otherwise light comedy.<br /><br />I'm sure that those who enjoyed The Castle and The Dish would also enjoy this movie.

It's a short movie from David Lynch with just 8 minutes, but it got all the 'Lynchian ingredients'! It's mysterious, dark, inconclusive, eerie, and strange; and before the blond girl starts to talk it's even a bit scary! The soundtrack is exceptional to create this odd atmosphere because it's also sinister and mysterious… <br /><br />About the setting itself, it hasn't the 'traditional' red curtains, but it has socking purple painted walls, which give it an equally effect of eeriness.<br /><br />The plot is about a girl who's locked in a dark room and she cries for help; then comes another girl who starts talking to her in a mysterious way, saying she's there just because of her fault… We don't know what did happen or what will happen next… it ended unsolved and puzzling, as a good Lynch movie must end! <br /><br />It's a great short, despite some amateurish acting. The girls are professional actresses, but I think their acting could have been better in this short.

This movie is very entertaining, and any critique is based on personal preferences - not the films quality. Other than the common excessive profanity in some scenes by Murphy, the film is a great vehicle for his type of humor. It has some pretty good special effects, and exciting action scenes.<br /><br />As a finder of lost children, Murphy's character starts off looking for a missing girl, which leads him on the path for which others believe he was 'chosen' - - to protect the Golden Child. The young boy is born as an enlightened one, destined to save the world from evil forces, but whose very life is in danger, if not for the help of Murphy, and his beautiful, mysterious and mystical helper/guide/protector.<br /><br />Also, there are moments of philosophical lessons to challenge the audience members who are interested in pondering deep thoughts. One such scene is where the Golden Child, that Murphy's character is solicited to protect, is tested by the monks of the mountain temple. An elderly monk presents a tray of ornamental necklaces for the child to choose from, and the child is tested on his choice.<br /><br />This is a fantasy/comedy that is based on the notion that there are both good and evil forces in our world of which most people are completely unaware. As we accept this premise of the plot, we must let go of our touch with a perceived daily reality, and prepare for the earth and walls to crumble away, and reveal a realm of evil just waiting to destroy us.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie, with a good plot, fine acting, and for the most part, pretty decent dialogue combining a serious topic with a healthy balance of Martial Art fighting, and Eddie Murphy humor.

Once again I took a chance and rented this bag of crap. Billed as a horror flick, there wasn't one scene, not one, that was even remotely scarey. NOT ONE!! Sure there was some nudity, but all the lesbian action got a little old. I guess maybe that was suppose to be this movie's saving grace? And Dan, what an annoying ass bag!! Right from the beginning I knew I was in for it when good ol' Dan first spoke. And he was suppose to be intimidating? What a laugh!! All in all, this movie is dreadfully awful! How in the hell do movies like this get made? If you want a movie with a few thrills in it, don't rent this one. This movie is about as thrilling as the Teletubbies.

Prior to Airport 79' these movies were rather good. They had decent special effects, all-star cast, and good acting. This movie destroyed the franchise, and there are many reasons for it. Lets talk about the special effects WOW!!!! they are horrific, what was the director thinking about. I know it's only 1979, but lets look at other very good special effects movies such as Star Wars(1977),and Moonraker(1979). I like the idea of the Concord and this could of been the best Airport movie, but they did too much with it. How about Joe Patroni(George Kennedey) shooting a flare out of the cockpit window, to prevent a heat seeking missile from hitting the concord. Also he is doing 90 degree dives and loops. This completely far fetched, and unrealistic WOW!!!!!! Believe me the special effects don't help this scene, and really are beyond poor.... They almost look like a cartoon, and this is how the whole movie is!!!Finally lets talk about the acting which in my opinion is extremely poor to fair at best.... Over acting is a major issue in this movie, especially George Kennedy.. Which I really like as an actor, but just doesn't cut in this movie. The full blame has to go on the director, who did a very poor editing job, and really whacked out the Airport Franchise. Too bad the Concord isn't still used today it was a marvel of Air travel...

The bearings of western-style Feminism on the various subcultures of India have hitherto remained largely non-existent, the two entities belonging to alien realms and threatening (in the name of tradition) never to coincide. Art imitates life (or so the claim goes) and popular Hindi cinema is no exception, reflecting an underlying misogyny which, regrettably, forms the foundation of much of the collective Indian culture. But why? What is it about the female gender that has rendered it so hateful to the culture that women are routinely subject to the most unimaginable horrors, including rape, murder, infanticide, imposed illiteracy, infidelity, and the subjugation of spirit that goes under the name of 'dowry'? Rajkumar Santoshi's latest offering, 'Lajja', asks the same plaintive question, linking the atrocities committed against women through three separate chapters/episodes which comprise the journey of shame endured by its protagonist, Vaidehi (Manisha Koirala).<br /><br />Direction on Santoshi's part is not up to par with the level the story demands. He fails to achieve the necessary sensitivity in depicting the saga of sadness and confronts the issue of misogyny from the side, instead of head-on. Santoshi has recently said that he did not make the film for an international film festival, but rather for the masses of his country. Regrettably, the tackiness shows, and the film too often delves into the action-blood-gore genre that Santoshi specializes in. The film suffers from its jerky, episodic pace and its ending is rather too contrived.<br /><br />The female cast is given much kinder and more rounded characterizations than their male counterparts. The protagonist is played sensitively by the luminescently beautiful Manisha Koirala who proves in Lajja that she is one of our time's more competent leading ladies, and given a proper role and set up, emerges with a truly commendable performance. One wonders how brilliantly she may have shone had the film been made by a director with the appropriate creative intention and appreciation of the issue at hand. Mahima Choudhary puts in a laudable performance and continues to show that she is an untapped talent. Cast as Janki, Madhuri Dixit performs with a never-before-seen fervor and felicity for what truly deserves the name of 'acting.' The role of a street smart performer who finds solace in alcohol and the promise of an unborn child stands as the greatest risk in her cannon of song-n-dance roles which have maintained her marquee status over the past decade. Which leaves the final and most disturbing performance in this would-be feminist saga, that of the ceaselessly talented Rekha. Lajja is Manisha Koirala's film, there can be no doubt about that, but it is Rekha who dominates the proceedings in a performance that digs into your bones and sends echoes of terror through the vestibules of your heart. Rekha dazzles as Ramdulari, foregoing vanity and complacency to deliver a performance that is so replete with authenticity and ingenuity that emotional nudity becomes the mantra of this portion of the film. Comparisons are indeed odious, especially when rendered opposite one of the world's great leading ladies, but in the gracious presence of this reigning screen legend the others fade in her shadow.<br /><br />'Lajja' has none of the sophistication of proto-feminist dramas like 'Zubeidaa', 'Pinjar', or even the Hell-Queen celebration 'Laadla': it fulfills its feministic goals in two early moments:the loud tirade in which Mahima berates her in-laws for their abuse of her father who has committed no other crime than given birth to a girl. She erupts, leaving the wedding procession in shambles. Seeing her father devastated, she begins to weep, blaming herself for the chaotic destruction in front of her. She bemoans, 'Why did I say anything? I have ruined everything! It is all my fault!' Her grandmother, witnessing silently the abuse she bore, comforts her by saying, 'Why are you crying? There is no reason for you to be crying. You are not at fault for anything. The fault is mine. The fault is of every woman who came before you, because if we had had the courage to say in our day what you have said today, there would have been no need for you to say anything today.' In this scene the importance of the Feminist Legacy is laid plainly in sight through words.<br /><br />The other, more subtle moment comes very early in the film when Vaidehi (Manisha) has fled from her abusive husband to the refuge of her parents' home in India. To viewers of western societies, it may seem perfectly reasonable (indeed, natural) that any abused woman would seek the protective guardianship of her parents; this, however, is a societal taboo in many eastern cultures, India among them. Once a woman has been married, the identity she assumes is that of her husband and his personal assets (family, business, children, etc.) For her to turn her back on these responsibilities is a grave social sin, one which truly has no equivalent for the western woman. She is thereafter regarded as tainted and as 'damaged goods', one whose value has been nullified entirely by her own actions and her refusal to submit to the role she has been given. She is not so much an individual as she is an emblem of familial honor. Her father rebukes her for her actions, concerned that his familial honor will be tarnished irreparably by the daughter he had already transferred to another man. His primary concern is that of the impending marriage of Vaidehi's younger sister, a prospect made far less likely with a divorced elder daughter in the same household. He tells her in no uncertain that she must return to the man to whom she lawfully belongs, however violent and sadistic he may be. He levies against her the age old adage that, 'The honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter.' Quietly and pensively, she replies, 'Yes, the honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter. But there is no honor for the daughter herself.'

I rented this one by accident. I lifted the video up and looked at the back and thought 'shameless Blair Witch rip-off'. Then, in a moment of carelessness, I grabbed 'The Francisville Experiment' thinking it was something else. My horror upon arriving home and realizing my mistake was far more terrifying than anything this film had to offer. Boring Characters, bad acting, and a feeling of 'we saw the Blair Witch Project and could do the same' permeate the action to the point where watching on fast forward will lead you straight to the credits. I'm not one to fault film makers for being lazy or desperate, but after this yawn-fest I felt the need to warn everyone: don't waste your time, you have a life.

The only way I can feel good about having handed over these precious minutes of my life is everyday telling someone how awful it was. And even if I say it once a day, every day for the rest of my life I will not fully get my point across. Just dumb.<br /><br />There's a difference in movies like this and movies like Elephant or Fat Guy Goes Nutzoid, two of my other least favorite movies. The latter two were terrible, yes, but that was that. Evan Almighty takes a strong cast and attempts to kill them all. Wanda Sykes, Jonah Hill, John Goodman and Steve Carrell...WHY GOD WHY!? All these people have much better talent, now every time I see any of them I will think of this terrible movie.<br /><br />The only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 was when I saw the movie, there was a mentally challenged elderly woman who thought the barrage of bird poop and getting-hurt-by-tools-while-building jokes were so funny that she didn't stop laughing the entire time, nearly stroking out at several times.

Ooof! This one was a stinker. It does not fall 'somewhere in between Star Wars and Thriller', thats for sure. In all actuality, it falls somewhere between the cracks of a Wham! video and Captain EO, only with not as big of a budget, and a lot more close ups of ugly teenagers crying. Simon Le Bon preens front and center, while the rest of the band gamely tries to hide the fact that they stole their whole career from Roxy Music's last 3 albums. Brief clips from Barbarella add nothing. Avoid at all costs. (However, I liked the part when they played 'Hungry Like The Wolf' but why was there a tiger lurking in the audience changing into a woman painted with tiger stripes? I mean, they aren't singing 'Eye of the Tiger' or 'Hungry like the Tiger' it's a Wolf! Whatever.) A DVD of Duran Duran's '80s videos is probably worth a look for nostalgia's sake

Thanks Jymn Magon, for creating Disney's 2 best cartoons ever. This show has improved very much over the years. As a kid, I didn't like it because I thought it was a rip-off of Ducktales, which was my favorite Disney thing at the time (like Grandmoffromero). Then later on though it was good but not great. But after reading the reviews here, I decided to give it another chance & bought the DVD set & watched the whole pilot the first day I got it, & was very pleasantly surprised. It's still my favorite episode, although the series did live up to it. And by the end of disc 1, I knew this was going to be a top tenner.<br /><br />The characters are so complex & charming. My favorite has got to be Wildcat. He's absolutely hilarious and sweet to boot. My next favorite is Baloo, the best pilot on the show. I can see why 'ol Jymn built the show around him. Then it's Kit Cloudkicker. He & Baloo have the best relationship in the series. After that, Louie. Jim Cummings did a perfect job of impersonating the original voice. After him, Rebecca. She has made me laugh pretty hard, and I do believe she and Baloo eventually marry. And finally(for the heroes), Molly. Although she's my least favorite, I still like her. I think she's a very cute character(much better than Webby from Ducktales). And the villains were very original. Don Karnage & his air pirates always crack me up, Kahn is ice-cold and ruthless, and the Thembrians are always at least amusing.<br /><br />As said before, the stories range from hilarious(Time Waits For No Bear, Romance of Red Chimp) to nothing short of touching(The Old Man & the Seaduck, Paradise Lost), to fun, funny & exciting adventures(In Search of Ancient Blunders & my favorite For Whom the Bell Klangs). These are only a few of my favorite episodes. Anyway, Talespin is Disney's best, aside from Gummi Bears Some reasons for this? GB had a decent amount of my favorite character(Cubbi), while TS didn't have enough of Wildcat. But in the end Talespin remains a classic. BOTTOM LINE- 10/10 6th best cartoon ever.

A college professor is working on creating zombies and, wouldn't you know it, things go horribly wrong. Next thing you know, the whole campus is overrun. Thank goodness there's a pair of uber-commandos trained for just such a situation. Too bad they must be accompanied by a group of moron-commandos, lead by a rapper (he doesn't even bother trying to play a military guy, he just responds to his superiors as if he were rappin' wit' da homies in da hood). The high point of this part of the movie is the locker room scene. The male and female moron-commandos share the same locker room, and apparently military regulations require all females to wear black bras and panties. Hey, if you can't make a good movie, at least you can have women in their underwear. My hat's off to the film makers.<br /><br />So, after much discussion of how well prepared these moron-commandos are for the job (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq), they all get killed off in fairly short order. Their biggest downfall seems to be that it never occurs to them to turn any lights on. A typical encounter has them walking into a room and seeing someone at the far end. Human or zombie? Can't tell. Flip on the lights? No, moron-commando protocol requires them to walk up to the person, making sure to hold their gun in such a way that it can be easily knocked out of their hand, and well, you know the drill. The demise of Sergeant Major Sticky Fingaz is especially fun - my favorite scene involving a rapper in any movie I've ever seen. Luckily (and again, hats off to the filmmakers), the hottest babe among the moron-commandos manages to survive. Her and the female uber-commando both wind up in tight T-shirts for the remainder of the movie. Now this is how a military operation should be performed! There's a bunch of running around, punctuated my humorous stuff like the uber-commandos being unable to get through a simple ventilator grating (it obviously is a thin piece of aluminum that you could easily put your fist through). This necessitates a plan to rub zombie guts all over themselves, and even though we've seen nothing in the movie to indicate that zombies locate their prey by smell, they're good enough to immediately begin sniffing the zombie guts and let our heroes go.<br /><br />A few other funny bits - the Paris Hilton gag, the 'Can you hear me now?' gag, and the fact that although the zombies immediately bite secondary characters, main characters are able to fight their way through dozens of them without being nibbled on. Another chuckle is provided by Mr. Fingaz, who can't seem to pronounce the word 'tourniquet' (toe-no-kit?).<br /><br />Overall, it's somewhat amusing. Could have used some more interesting characters, but for a Sci-Fi Channel original, I was mildly impressed.

I really like Richard Gere...I always have and it seems as of late that his status as a Hollywood star and money maker has slipped but it would appear to me that the reason is that he is taking very mature, intense roles and has been very successful at it just not financially because I have seen him in some truly great gems as of late including The Hoax, The Hunting Party (both must see films! See my reviews) and now this The Flock which apparently was meant to be a big release considering it's substantial 35 million + budget. It seems that some of the other IMDb reviews are very, very harsh because I thought the film dealt with a potentially very serious social issue in a very direct, violent and disturbing way and Gere just brings it all home. It's an action thriller drama that kept my glued to the Television with it's story. I think part of the problem that people seem to have with it is that it Hollywood-izes a very serious issue but I don't think it does it with disrespect but rather tries to take a different spin to make people aware that this exists. In fact it's much the same way that The Hunting Party dealt with war. Hong Kong director Wai-keung Lau did a decent job holding it together but I think the cast is what made it watchable.<br /><br />Richard Gere as you may have guessed from my previous comments is brilliant as a social worker of sorts Erroll Babbage who has kind of created his own style and laws when it comes to keeping track of his 'Flock' who are registered violent sex offenders. He holds no punches in tracking these people, following them and making absolutely sure they don't re-offend and if they do he'll be the one to identify and stop them any way he can. Gere is so intense and looks drained from this job and he's become violent and angry at watching these monsters loose on the street. He is just fantastic. Claire Danes is also terrific as Babbage's new partner and his replacement who he has to train to do his job. Danes' character is far more typical social worker and is a little taken aback by Babbage's style and methods but slowly realizes what he is trying to accomplish and go up against. The two of them are brilliant together and have terrific chemistry with such vastly different characters. KaDee Strickland plays a disturbed registered offender who appears to be torn from the headlines as she plays a character very reminiscent of Karla Homolka (Paul Bernardo's wife who is now out) for those of you who follow Canadian serial killers. Her character goes a little over the top but she is convincing and horrifying all at once. Russell Sams has a small role as Strickland's new boyfriend and he would have been better probably given a bigger role. Ray Wise, who is a terrific character actor (check him out in Dead End as well as the amazing turn as Satan himself in the WB show Reaper) and he gets a small but good role as the head of the Public Safety department and Babbage's boss.<br /><br />The movie isn't perfect despite the terrific performances of it's lead cast. It takes liberties by really trying to make the film more entertainment than educational but it's just a different angle not unlike the Nicholas Cage dud 8MM. The Flock takes you into the underbelly of the sex trade, kidnapping, human trafficking and more and is just really something to watch. Perhaps it wasn't directed or written as well as it could have been but I am telling you that Danes and Gere together make this movie completely watchable and a really great thriller. It's disturbing but also something that isn't very complex and yet Gere's character in many ways is intensely complex with many layers and also opens social stigma and makes you contemplate about vigilantism in many ways when you see the people Gere deals with. I encourage you all to ignore poor reviews and see it for yourself because it's worth checking out!! 8.5/10

Has Al Pacino ever been in a bad movie? His name seems to be an imprimatur for top notch cinema. This is as good a performance as he's ever given. Pacino is an American Olivier. And this is a political thriller as good as they get. There are no good guys and no bad guys. But the system has its inexorable effect on the people who think they're running it. Not only is Pacino's performance compelling --- the eulogy at the dead child's funeral is awesomely powerful --- the film has a fast paced, gritty realism to it that enhances the fine performances without resorting to gimmicks. This outstanding portrait of big city politics also manages to provide two hours of superb movie watching without undue violence, overheated sex or gutter language. There is murder. There are bad people. But they come across effectively without crossing the line. A film like this restores my jaded faith in Hollywood. I don't award many tens. This one richly deserves it!

While a bit preachy on the topic of progress as the saving grace of mankind, this is still a stunning film that presages the science-fiction special effects blockbusters that would take another 40 years to arrive on the silver screen. It predicts the global chaos of WWII, but expands on the premise by having the conflict last 30 years, and then tells the epic tale of man's struggle out from under the rubble and into the wilds of space. The acting seems wooden and strangely sterile, but this is perhaps a result of its contrast with the visuals which must have been utterly breathtaking at the time of the movie's release, and which still impress today. This is a film not to be missed by anyone at all interested in the SF genre.

All Risto Jarva's films are worth of seeing. Some like 'Jäniksen vuosi' and 'Loma' are best films in their genre and have reached a status of a classics in Finnish cinema-history.<br /><br />Most people have formed a impression of actor Antti Litja through Jarva's films. Litja acted leading role in three of Jarva's films which all became successes at box office and movie reviews.<br /><br />It's nice to see that idea of 'Jäniksen Vuosi' still lives in commercials (I think it was tele-operator Sonera's TV add where Litja was walking in mountain fell at Lapland with hare in his arms. Everibody who has seen the film knows what I am talking about..) 'Jäniksen Vuosi' Is a beautiful film with great actors and good filming locations - like famous small town in Lappland, Sodankylä, where the best Film festival in the world is held - The Midnight Sun Film Festival. I recommend it for all to go there on June - but remember warm clothes and raincoat :)

OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies.

First of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!<br /><br />If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared 'too human and real' without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.<br /><br />I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, 'ain't' always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood.

What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.<br /><br />The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence. <br /><br />What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that.

In the past 5 years I have rented some bad movies...completely on purpose. See I aspire to be a movie reviewer, and as we all know there are horrible movies released every year. Anyway, about 3 months ago I rented this one. I watched it all the way through...and cried profusely. This is one of those movies that is so freakin bad it makes you want to puke. It actually put a sick feeling in my stomach. I've seen lots of bad movies (Mystery Science Theater 3000 anyone?) but this one takes the cake. The plot was hard to follow, the lighting horrible and the sounds almost inaudible. If there was a negative rating on the scale here this movie would be at -11 for me. This may seem odd, but I highly recommend it. It's something you have to see for yourself...but don't say I didn't warn you. I don't think this review could get any more precise so I'm done now.<br /><br />

It's impossible for me to objectively consider this movie. Not that I haven't tried, mind you - but I sit down, and I pop in the aged VHS, and I watch the opening...and suddenly I'm five years old again and clutching my very own Care Bear and watching the movie with open eyes and an eager heart.<br /><br />I can see, objectively, that this movie is a BIZARRE combination of cuddly baby merchandising-mascots and creepy prepubescent children with evil powers that has a thin story and uninteresting animation. But my inner five-year-old goes, 'Yay! Care Bears!' every time I think about it. So - I'd only (cautiously, reluctantly) recommend this movie for those who saw it during their early youth and can call on the awesome power of nostalgia while watching it (like me) OR those lovably cynical Gen-X/Y-ers who deliberately seek out the wonderfully bad/strange (a category in which this movie...definitely belongs). To those actually looking for a compelling movie or wholesome family entertainment: You might want to keep looking.

Election marks the 2nd trial society theme movie directed by Johnnie To.<br /><br />To marvellously casted Simon Yan and Tony Leung Kar Fai as Lok and Big D, as the two trial members who were chosen as candidates for the position of chairman for Ho Sing society, a 100 year old trial society.<br /><br />While Lok is a man who keeps his cool at all times, Big D is not only impatient, but also thinks that he is on top of everything. Lok was chosen as the next chairman for 2 years. To have the total control of the gang, the newly elected chairman must be passed down with a Dragon Baton, which represents power and authority. Big D was extremely unhappy with the results that he was not chosen to be the next chairman after paying a handsome figure of bribes to the council members. He ordered his man to get the Baton before it falls onto the hands of Lok.<br /><br />While Big D is getting the Baton, Lok has other plans for him.<br /><br />This is one of the trial society theme movies where not much bloodshed is needed. Johnnie To puts the greed of the human beings in the movie, where bloodshed is commonly used in other trial society theme movies to show how the greed of human beings can caused the death or the downfall of one. However, no single bullet is used, hardly any gangfights are involved in Election. It's the battle of the wits that makes Election stands out of the rest.<br /><br />Apart from Maggie Shiu, the only actress in Election with less than 5 lines to talk in the whole movie, masculinity rules the whole movie. Louis Koo and Nick Cheung, who was seen in To's previous film, are casted as an undercover cop and a gangster who sold his life to the gang respectively. Together with some of the veteran actors making their appearance in the film and the excellent script, it makes the only HK movie to represent Cannes Fil Festival 2005.<br /><br />Election has hardly failed any critics who wants an different trial society theme movie.

No matter how much it hurts me to say this,the movie is not as good as it could have been.Maybe I was misled by the countless exaggerated reviews here on IMDb,but I expected so much more...<br /><br />Sure,the idea is a good one,the violent scenes and the camera-work are outstanding,the imagination of genius Dario is breathtaking, but the movie is 'soiled' by a couple of mistakes that I find unforgivable. First of all, am I one of the few people who feel that the Heavy Metal music played in the most intense scenes simply rips the atmosphere apart??? With a different kind of music (Goblin????) during the 'needle' scenes,it would have been SOOOO intense!... Instead,the soundtrack destroys any chance for tension... Secondly, the final killing scene and the last few moments of the movie are simply silly and uninspired. I don't want to say 'amateurish', cause I love Argento's movies.The ending left me feeling empty.Talk about a final impression! This is hardly what happens in most of Dario's films! Though,admittedly,Suspiria also suffers from a rushed finale (even if most of it is brilliant)....<br /><br />In short,watch this movie,try to make the most of its good points,but be prepared for some bad ones as well. This is NOT a perfect movie by ANY means.

I saw this director's 'Woman On The Beach' and could not understand the good to great reviews. This film is much like that one, two people who are caught in a relationship with very little dynamic and even less interest to anyone else. Like his other films, you have to want to listen to vacuous dialog, wade through very little and become enchanted with underwritten, pretty uninteresting characters. If you feel you can like this film, don't let my review stop you. I do like minimalism in films, but I feel Tsai Ming-Liang's films are far superior. He has a fairly terrific actor in Lee Kang-Sheng in his films. There is nothing here. I wish IU liked it, but I don't. Oh, well.

This horror tale takes place in the Namib Desert of Africa. A Canadian systems analyst, Zach Straker(Scott Bairstow)is sent on an assignment for a diamond mining company. Although he hates field work, he finds himself in a truck with a rescue unit in the open desert fighting sand flies and whipping, blowing sand. Four diamond prospectors are found...well whats left of their scattered bones are discovered. During a long cold desert night a shape-shifting monster makes its appearance. Zach and his colleagues are terrified when their truck is stranded and members of the unit are dying horribly one by one. There is no character development; let alone dialogue to speak of. The desert set in its own way is beautiful and without giving anything away... the creature is as old as the desert sands. Also in the cast are: Rachel Shelley, Warrick Grier and Patrick Shai.

A new guard in in the armored truck gig is recruited by his co-workers to steal 42 million from the truck. No bad guys, so no one will get hurt, right? Of course things go wrong and the new guard decides to have a conscience and make things right by saving the life of a dying man.<br /><br />I'll admit that I didn't really have any interest in this film, but I didn't have any interest in Fantastic Mr Fox either, and that film made my top ten of the year. Armored is even more of a disappointment then I thought it would be. As a heist film, it fails to deliver the goods, it's boring and full of plot holes and leaps in logic that one will hurt themselves thinking about it.<br /><br />Despite this the film somehow has a really great cast, but the film doesn't even use this to it's advantage. Everyone seems wasted in wooden characters that make stupid choices. Columbus Short is an uninteresting lead that is never charismatic and never makes the audience want to give a crap. Matt Dillon is the mastermind behind the heist and he plays Mr. Nice Guy at first, then when things don't go his way he quickly becomes the villain. The rest of the impressive cast include Lawrence Fisburn, Jean Reno, Skeet Ulrich, Fred Ward, Amaury Nolasco from Prison Break and Milo Ventimiglia from Heros. Non of them do much and when they actually do something, it's without much reasoning behind it.<br /><br />The film is relatively short, but even with it's running time under 90 minutes, it felt dragged out. How long can you make a movie about a guy trapped somewhere? Phonebooth did a decent job and it was even more restricted. The leaps of logic concerning the plot here are tragic. 42 million and all the security they have are check ins every hour or so? The entire plan from my understanding was to drive the trucks into an abandoned warehouse and hide the money. Pretend to get hit and burn the trucks. They would then walk away with the money. Of course something goes wrong, or there would be no movie right? Through a series of unfortunate events out so called hero has trapped himself inside the truck with an injured officer. The rest of the movie is Dillion and his crew banging on the doors to get in. How very exciting.<br /><br />The script calls for our hero to have financial problems, he might lose his house, which would in turn make him lose his brother. You see, both their parents died and it's just the two of them looking out for each other. So now he has a reason to join the heist. At first he didn't want in, but his money problems is just the right push to throw him in the thick of things. How convenient. <br /><br />Armored's whole spin on the heist genre is that it's from an armored truck, from the guys who drive it. After that basic premise, the film falls flat on it's face. I found myself wanting it to end sooner and sooner each time someone spoke. Speaking of the ending, it sucks. <br /><br />Skip it.

I thought it was one of the best sequels I have seen in a while. Sometimes I felt as though I would just want someone to die, Stanley's killing off of the annoying characters was brilliant. It was such a well done movie that you were happy when so and so died. My only problem was in some scenes it looked like someone with a home camera was filming it and it was weird. Judd Nelson is cute, at least in my opinion and he was excellent in the role as Stanley Caldwell. Brilliant movie.

An excellent example of what happens when one central body controls everyone. I liked this movie because Glenn Corbett also appeared in Star Trek as Zeffrem Cochrane in 1967. I also liked it because I am a fan of the apollo space program.

I first saw Robin Hood: Men in Tights back in 1994 in the cinema. I went to see it because I always liked Robin Hood and I saw the trailer of this movie and thought it was hilarious. After I saw the movie I must say it was even better than I thought. Not only is it very funny, it's also a very well made movie with beautiful sets and costumes and a very beautiful score by Hummie Mann. The acting in the movie is also good, Cary Elwes is funny as Robin Hood and also Tracey Ullman, Richard Lewis, Mark Blankfield, David Chapelle, Amy Yasbeck, Megan Cavanagh, Eric Allan Kramer, Matthew Porretta and Mel Brooks himself are funny. But the best part in the movie is played by Roger Rees as the evil Sheriff of Rottingham. He has the best scenes in the movie and also the best dialogue ('King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is', which stands for 'It is illegal to kill a wild pig in the king's forest').He somehow mixes up all the words and speaks out a sentence that nobody understands. Robin Hood: Men in Tights is in my book one of the best Mel Brooks films to date and I can't say that I have laughed as much about a film as this one. It's just non-stop laughing.

As I sat in front of the TV watching this movie, I thought, 'Oh, what Alfred Hitchcock, or even Brian DePalma, could have done with this!' Chances are, you will too. It does start out intrigueing. A British park ranger living in Los Angeles (Collin Firth) marries a pretty, demure brunette woman (Lisa Zane) whom he met in a park only a short time ago. Then, one day she dissappears. The police are unable to find any documentation that she ever existed, and Firth conducts his own search. So far, so good. Just as he's about to give up, he turns to his womanizing best friend (Billy Zane), and they stumble onto her former life in L.A.'s sordid underground of drugs, nightclubs, and ametuer filmmaking, and then to her history of mental instability. At that point, Firth's life is in danger, and the film falls apart. None of the characters from Lisa Zane's past are remotely interesting. The film moves slowly, and there's very little action. There is a subplot regarding missing drug money, but it's just a throwaway. No chases, no cliffhanging sequences, and no suspense. Just some dull beatings and a lot of chat by boring characters. One thing worth noting, Lisa Zane and Billy Zane are brother and sister, but they never appear in a scene together. By the end of the movie, you're torn between wondering what might have been and trying to stay awake.

At first i didn't think that Ben Affleck could really pull off a funny Christmas movie,, boy was i wrong, my daughter invited me to watch this with her and i was not disappointed at all. James Gandolfini was funny,, i really liked Christina Appelagate, and Catherine O' Hara was good too, the storyline is what really sold me,, i mean,, too put up with family,, at the table for people you only hardly see but once or twice a year,, and probably don't get along with anyway,, you really do need as much alcohol as you're system can stand to deal with Christmas,, so i thought that the premise was good there, buying the family with 250000 dollars, was a little on the far fetched side,, but it turned out to work pretty good for me,, cause it was a riot all the way through, it shows the class struggle of the different families. it has lot's of funny moments, including embarrassing stuff on the computer for a teenage boy. all in all i loved this movie and will watch it again next Christmas or sooner if my daughter wants too.

This was a horrible film! I gave it 2 Points, one for Angelina Jolie and a second one for the beautiful Porsche in the beginning... Other than that the story just plain sucked and cars racing through cities wasn't so new in 1970. The Happyend was probably what annoyed me the most, seldomly seen anything so constructed!

I finally got hold of Lifeforce on DVD with the widescreen format intact and rousing Henry Mancini score to the max. After having viewed Lifeforce for fifteen years on tape, I have to say that the 'uncut' DVD version was both great and disappointing. The U.S. version is so *much* better than the DVD (European?) version. The U.S. version of lifeforce moves much faster (the editing on the DVD version is terrible. Feels like an unfinished cut). And the many scenes not seen in the American version add little or nothing to the final problem. In fact one 'new' moment almost destroys the entire movie, when Caine (peter firth) meets the male alien at the cathedral. I love this scene, in the U.S. version though. On the DVD, the male alien speaks to Caine and what he says is soooooo hilarious. It's the pinnacle of hilarity:<br /><br />'It'll be much less terrifying if you just come to me!' the male alien says, in a deep 1950s style voice. I was floored when I saw this. It just doesn't belong in the movie. That scene is pure camp in an otherwise super serious flick. I'm glad Hooper (or whoever) cut that scene when the movie was released in North America. There are several changes that were made for the U.S. version that make Lifeforce that much better and I wished the DVD had the U.S. version. The editing is sharp and frenzied without being annoying and some spots that were already boring in the U.S. version are even more boring on the DVD version because of added scenes. And the opening credits on the DVD is terrible. Much better in the U.S. version. More subtle.<br /><br />I love this film. It's basically aliens making a pit-stop over earth and sucking up as much Lifeforce as possible. The film has too many flat, uninspiring sequences (talk, talk, talk) but when the action goes to London, it's fun. The film really shines in these scenes. One can see Hooper finally doing what he's great at: chaos, savagery, horror! Lifeforce should have had more of these chaos scenes. They're the best Apocalyptic scenes ever put on film. It's also the best zombie movie ever. The zombies are hungry (for lifeforce, not flesh) and they're crazed and agile and terrifying. Not the slow moving bores of other zombie movies. Also, a lot of people have criticized the ending but I love it. It leaves you high and dry, like one of the lifeforce-drained victims.<br /><br />And to think this movie came out during the cute and cuddly 80s, when people flocked to E.T. or Cocoon or other sweet and boring, feel good sci-fi movies. No wonder it bombed because it was way ahead of its time with its super nihilistic point of view!<br /><br />As for the DVD, well, it ain't great. The image is muddy and grainy and there are no extras whatsoever. But it's great to see the movie in its widescreen format. I just hope that they'll release a clean, crisp U.S. version on a DVD, and with commentary by Hooper and Dykstra.

Yep, lots of shouting, screaming, cheering, arguing, celebrating, fist clinching, high fiving & fighting. You have a general idea as to why, but can never be 100% certain. A naval knowledge would be an advantage for the finer points, but then you'd probably spot the many flaws. Not an awful film & Hackman & Washington are their usual brilliant, but the plot was one you could peg pretty early on. I'm still waiting to see a submarine film where people get on with each other & don't argue, but then you probably wouldn't have a film.<br /><br />4/10

This is a multi-faceted, insightful and bold story about the people in the life of a schizophrenic patient, their (and our) perception and realities. Although the main theme revolves around a delusional young woman, the story delightfully flirts with physics, medicine, religion and even politics as it questions our perceptions about what is true and what is real. Konkona Sensharma beautifully conveys that the world Mithi is living in is as real to her as ours is to us. Within that world, she is logical and her thoughts are internally consistent, not the gibberish that they seem to us in our world.<br /><br />Here are a few outstanding scenes to look out for while watching the movie (don't worry, these are not spoilers). I absolutely loved the way Aparna Sen wove these commentaries into the story.<br /><br />- The references to quantum mechanics and relativity intermingled with the witch-doctor ('ojha' in Hindi) performing his religious rituals that he believes will drive away the 'ghosts' sitting in Mithi's brain. <br /><br />- The doctor prescribing shock-treatment as a solution that is 'believed' to work <br /><br />- Windows of perception - The scene about the review of Anu's book. <br /><br />- The allusion to illusion in a conversation about a director looking for 'maya'. <br /><br />- News footage of George Bush telling the whole world that there is 'no doubt in his mind' that there are WMD in Iraq (now, that is not as much about Bush's perception, who I suspect knew the truth, as the gullible public's perception about WMD in Iraq.)<br /><br />- One of the best scenes in the movie is where Mithi tells Anu 'Charu sent this man to beat me' and Anu dismisses it as a matter of course. Konkona did a fantastic job, bringing out the strange mix of muddled thoughts in a schizophrenic's brain when her world and the real world clash.<br /><br />Aparna Sen was bold, but not bold enough to pose one big question: Is nearly all of mankind delusional to believe in God? She could have inserted some scenes about 'normal', 'healthy' people praying to and sacrificing for a Being that no one has ever seen or heard from in all of human history (The ritual/exorcism scene doesn't go far enough). That would be the ultimate question: What is normal? Who's reality is right, the Believer's or the Atheist's?<br /><br />IMHO, this movie is a far more intricate exploration of the schizophrenic mind than 'A Beautiful Mind'. It looks at the minds of not just the sick person, but also the healthy, and does so from many different angles and illuminates our understanding of our own minds and our world. If the former got 4 Oscars, this deserves more - At least one each for story, screenplay, direction, Konkona, and Shabana Azmi. It was truly a treat to watch this movie and I'm glad I bought the DVD for my collection. <br /><br />This was a story very well-told indeed.

well 'Wayne's World' is long gone and the years since then have been hard for snl off-shoot movies. from such cinematic offal as 'It's Pat' to the recent 80 minute yawn, 'A Night at the Roxbury,' many have, no doubt, lost faith that any other snl skit will ever make a successful transition to the silver screen. well fear not because Tim Meadows comes through in spades. the well-written plot maintains audience interest until the very end and while it remains true to the Leon Phelps character introduced in the five minute skit, the storyline allows the character to develop. the humor (consisting largely of sex jokes) is fresh and interesting and made me laugh harder than i have in any movie in recent memory. its a just great time if you don't feel like taking yourself too seriously. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen of 'Saved by the Bell' fame, makes an appearance in the film and looks incredible. finally Billy Dee Williams, reliving his Colt 45 days, gives the movie a touch of class. and for those out there who are mindless movie quoters like myself, you will find this movie to be eminently quotable, 'ooh, it's a lady!'

Without 'mental anachronism', this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the 'disenchantment of the world'. That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of 'primitive thought'. Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD… thank you in advance.

A group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.<br /><br />My Grade: D-