Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

The many other comments about the film say it all - just like to add that we showed it last week to around 30 at our Community Cinema, and it got an overall average score of 8.6. We'd 100% recommend it, then, for today's audiences, especially if they can see it on a real cinema screen, and can talk about it with others afterwards, as our audience did.<br /><br />The sheer power of the acting performances by the whole troupe was incredible and quite spellbinding. Of course, Finney and Courtenay were truly the stars. but everybody was thoroughly well cast. For our afternoon audience, the majority of whom are 'senior citizens', the fact that the plot could be followed with such ease because of the clarity of speech and the wonderful non-techy use of camera and sound was a great influence<br /><br />How delightful, many said, to see a really great film that's British: still not dated twenty years on: not full filled with blood & guts: not confusing because of bob-about-all-over-the-place camera shots, and back and forth through time story lines: no seedy sex scenes. Such views were even uttered by some who were younger.

Sexy murderess Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) still yearns for a life of wedded bliss with ex-boyfriend, crazed killer Charles 'Chucky' Lee Ray. After getting her hands on the mutilated Good Guy doll that last played host to his spirit, and doing a spot of repair work, she conducts a satanic ritual that returns his life to the toy.<br /><br />Unfortunately for poor Tiff, the reanimated maniac shows no interest in marriage, and so she traps him in a cage, with a bride doll for company. Eventually, a rather angry Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif) escapes his confines, electrocutes Tiffany in the bath, and traps her soul in his 'bride' as retribution.<br /><br />Realising that they are now both in the same predicament, the plastic pair put their differences aside and decide to head for Hackensack, New Jersey, where they can lay their hands on the magical amulet that can relocate their spirits into human hosts. Tricking trailer park hunk Jesse (Nick Stabile) and his tasty girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl) into taking them to their destination, the psycho dolls embark on a murderous rampage, with their unwitting companions copping the blame.<br /><br />Although the idea of a kid's doll being possessed by the spirit of a mass murderer has always been rather comical, it wasn't until the fourth film in the Child's Play series that the makers fully embraced the sheer lunacy of the premise, opting to plays things much more for laughs than for scares (although there is still plenty of OTT splatter for us gore-hounds to enjoy).<br /><br />Talented Hong Kong director Ronny Yu oversees proceedings, deftly translating the witty tongue-in-cheek script into a slick and thoroughly enjoyable cinematic ride. Similarly, the excellent cast handle the camp material perfectly, with Stabile and Heigl making a likable couple, but smoking hot Tilly stealing the show as blonde, buxom, pouting, PVC-mini-skirted temptress Tiffany. Kevin Yagher's impressively expressive doll effects also go a long way to making the film such a success.<br /><br />Overall, this film is unlikely to find many fans amongst 'serious' horror aficionados, but those who enjoy the odd spot of mindless popcorn entertainment, full of twisted, black humour, crazy death scenes, and magnificent cleavages should have a blast.

All I can say after watching Snitch'd is please stop Mr. Cahill. It is painfully clear you have no understanding of what you make movies about. If you insist on making movies about gangsters I urge you to do research. It's comical to watch movies with absurd gangbangers that even sound more absurd when they speak.<br /><br />I laughed at the part when Mr. Cahill goes to a school with only 3 students and proceeds to kick their butts in kung fu fashion. This movie was tough as an after school special. Who had the idea to have hats worn that say where a particular gangbanger was from?. I suspect real gangbangers do not wear hats claiming there gang. That would be stupid considering new laws that add length to a prison term if a person is gang related. <br /><br />Snitch'd is the WORST gangbanger movie ever made.

I'm a huge Steven Seagal fan. Hell, I probably weigh as much as he does although I don't have the street cred to sport the frizzy-mullet-ponytail. Having stated my own bias and affection for America's favorite corpulent stage and screen hero, it is with a heavy heart that I must declare this to be his worst movie ever. I'm not sure he could make a movie any worse than this.<br /><br />In his defense the major problems with this film seem to occur in post-production. It's painfully obvious that this movie was supposed to have a different storyline. That results in woeful voiceovers in which Steve's voice doesn't nearly sync up with that of the dubbed voice. The editing is pisspoor and overall this starts bad, gets even worse, and by the end you'll wish you had rewatched The Da Vinci Code instead. Yes, it's that bad.<br /><br />After this I don't know what to expect from Steve. My friends still laugh at me for listening to his CDs. Is it time I start checking out some of the Van Damme direct to DVD nutty logs? If you are tempted to watch this movie, rip your eyeballs out and flush them down the toilet. A lifetime of darkness is better than 89 minutes of this.

Mindless dribble about the second coming of Christ in the form of a hippie and albino looking Sandra Locke. You have no idea what's happening on the screen with the irritating theme song 'Suzanne' being played over and over throughout the movie until when 'The Second Coming of Suzanne' is over you already know it by hard no matter how hard you try to forget the whole thing.<br /><br />This off-the-wall armature movie maker Logan,Jared Martin, is out to make the movie of the century but is so rude and obnoxious that none in the banking world is willing to finance his project. Planning to go on his own Logan then spots this couple at a seaside café and is fascinated with the young woman Suzanne, Sandra Locke, who reminds him of someone he knew in another life: Jesus Christ.<br /><br />With Logan's assistant and all around gofer Clavius, Richard Dreyfuss,somehow getting a $740,000.00 loan from the bank to finance Logan's masterpiece he starts to work on Suzanne by flattering her about her talent as an actress in order to get her interested to be in his film. This leads to Suzanne not only leaving her boyfriend artist Simon, Paul Sand, but later Simon being so depressed and feeling all alone takes a gun to his mouth and blows his brains out.<br /><br />The movie also has two somewhat unrelated sub-plots in it that has to do with a young autistic girl Dorothy, Kari Avalos, who's cured of her autism by Suzanne after everyone else, at the psychiatric hospital that she was committed to,failed. It's not really known what exactly Suzanne was doing at the hospital but she seemed to be some kind of orderly or volunteer there; was this supposed to show us in the audience that she, like Jesus, could miraculously heal the sick?<br /><br />There's also this newspaper columnist and big time businessman tycoon Jackson Sinclair, Gene Barry, who seems to be either going through a very difficult mid-life crisis or has seen a biblical-like vision that changed his life forever. Sinclair had been searching for the meaning of life as well as what it's all about all through the movie and wanted to know why there's all this suffering in the world, like this movie that he's in, and seemed to have found the answer when he first laid his eyes on Suzanne. Sinclair also got some sense knocked into his head when his private chauffeur David, Mark Rasmusser, who's gotten sick and tired of his weird and crazy hallucinations almost running him off a cliff in a kamikaze like drive along the Pacific Coast.<br /><br />The movie 'The Second Coming of Suzanne' goes on with a number of unrelated sequences, probably to fill or pad in some time by it's director and film editor, and then goes to it's final scene in a Christ-like crucification on a hill as Logan has all the cameras rolling. It turns out that the crazed Logan got so carried away with his masterpiece as he tried to replicate, on the helpless and tied up Suzanne, the actual crucification of Jesus Christ some 2,000 years ago.<br /><br />Hard to sit through and almost impossible to follow 'The Second Coming of Suzanne' puts you through the same kind torture that Suzanne is put through by Logan and the makers of the film. The movie tries to be arty but that's just an excuse to cover up it's brainless and non-existent storyline and even worse the terrible and amateurish acting by everyone in it.

I bought this film from e-bay as part of a lot of about twenty horror flicks, all about a dollar a piece. When watching this, my first impression was that it probably was from the late 80s. Later on I began thinking - the Linkin Park posters on the wall and everything else seemed to hint that I was dealing with a more recent film. Realizing that, the flick became an unbearable torment. The last 3 minutes were the longest in the movie history - the film just refused to end. Is there a genre such as 'horror for children'? In that case this film is definitely it. If there are parents, perverse enough to want to introduce their offspring to horror, I suggest this would be perfect for kids of about 6-8. The only thing I really liked was Greg Cipes who was much too good an actor for that kind of nostalgic retro bottom part of a drive-in double-bill.

Where to begin? Anachronism? High tech cross bow with a scope in about 500AD? Arrows with explosive charges in 500AD? A monster Grendel that looks like a robocop and obviously never interacts with any of the weapons fired or swung against him? The heart torn out of his victim's chest without any sense of contact? Possibly the blond who would fit in on a recent fashion show with her make-up and streaked hair? The ancient Danish court represented in Classical Greek style? The queen played by Marina Sirtis more savaged by her makeup artist than by madness? The effects are way too weak to carry this story. There are some stories that don't mind or even benefit from cheap effects, but this Grendel isn't one of them. <br /><br />What about characters who seem to jump about in their attitudes without motivation? A bravado idiot prince whose home has already been savaged more than once by the monster Grendel seems to have less respect for the danger he faces than Beowulf who was sent from afar from the land of the Geats to help the desperate Danes. In this it feels more like an old cowboy western than any kind of myth.<br /><br />Beowulf is an ancient tale from an era with almost no literary tradition and much of both its sentiment and its drama is obscure. I suspect that any modern telling which doesn't make an intelligent attempt to penetrate the obscurity must fail. I didn't love the recent 'Beowulf and Grendel' which sees Grendel essentially as human and sees Hrothgar and his Danes as too arrogant and stupid to recognize Grendel's attacks as well-justified vengeance, but I had to respect its revisionist position that Hrothgar's Danes were a bunch of macho thugs who never grasped, even after it was all over, that they had brought this nightmare on themselves, and therefore, the original story of Beowulf, as it was written, was a misrepresentation of the real story. I think there's a more complex meaning to be understood than that, but this 'Grendel's' terrible secret that Grendel's attacks are tied to previous human sacrifice doesn't really bring us closer to the shame experienced by Hrothgar and the Danes. <br /><br />This Beowulf has little to recommend it as traditional myth or as modern fantasy. I give it a 4: higher than it deserves, but always hopeful that a poor effort will draw attention by someone who is up to telling the story intelligently. In the meantime, Sci-Fi's movie-making seems to be following the NASA policy that it's better to build lots of probes that fail than a few that succeed.

I was looking forward to this movie as everyone was talking about it as being a good horror movie, and finally an European one. So, maybe my expectations were to high.<br /><br />It begins with a good quiet horror/shock sequence but it lets you down right away in the following scenes, where the plot begin being introduced, as the acting and the motivation/life of the characters reveals itself no better than any 'made for TV' drama. It keeps that way right into the end.<br /><br />About the horror part of the movie, it is certainly a good idea and a different one, but ALL the scenes are of the 'seen it before' kind.<br /><br />Overall, my idea of this movie was that it had a good concept, which was inserted into a mediocre story, bad acting and less than tolerable plot holes.<br /><br />

Deranged and graphically gory Japanese film about little beings taking people over and turning them into necroborg-zombie like machines- which beat and hack each other apart so that the winner can eat the loser. In the middle of this a pair of lovers become infected.<br /><br />Technically superb horror comedy(?) is only for those with strong stomachs as blood and body parts go flying. Good taste prevents me from describing what happens here, but lets just say its pretty gruesome. If you like this sort of thing with form several steps above slender content by all means see this film. Personally I'm not normally one to enjoy films like this on anything but the how sick and twisted do they go level. Here I was intrigued enough that I can suggest it to people I know who like really gory movies.. Its also a film with enough going on in the details that I want to see it again since now that I know what was going on-as revealed in the end-I want to go back and see what it was I didn't catch on to. There is an internal logic rare in these films.<br /><br />7ish out of 10 for those who like blood and severed limbs, its a zero or more precisely a run and hide alert for everyone else.

Somewhere, buried very deep inside this film is a half-way decent movie trying to get out. The only traces are a few early scenes in Los Angeles (in a bar and a graveyard) and thereafter a couple of pieces of production design. Like I say, buried very deep. One of the biggest challenges faced by movies involving the supernatural is how to have characters react believably in unbelievable situations. Annie Mcenroe's reaction to being told that her sister (presumably Dee Wallace from the first movie) is (was?) a werewolf is, if I recall, along the lines of; 'Oh! Really?'. Not one of the better responses to said challenge. The non sequitirs continue as the story moves to Trannsylvania in search of Stirba the (apparently self-appointed) 'Queen of the Werewolves'. As Stirba, Sybil Danning is the two best things in the movie. Yes, even better than the werewolf group-sex scene, Reb Brown's acting, and the oddly simian-looking werewolf suits. The end credits have assumed minor legend status and are available in all their glory (at least until the censor finds them) on Youtube. Check them out to see why and remember, the whole film makes about the same amount of sense. If you happen to catch this on US television the credits have been re-edited to replace the endlessly repeated shot of Danning ripping off her top with another endlessly repeated shot of her ripping open a cloak only this time she has some kind of top on underneath. It's a sort of absurdity, cherry-on-top moment which defies satire.

This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.<br /><br />And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.<br /><br />When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.<br /><br />This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...<br /><br />Another computer generated mutant croc on the prowl for human lunchmeat, let loose by another one of those facilities conducting mad science. Gereco Biotech company is fooling around with growth hormone research, accidentally releasing a baby crocodile which is evolving at an accelerating rate.<br /><br />B-movie cast add a deal of fun to this run of the mill 'genetic mistake monster movie'. Costas Mandylor evokes Mick Dundee, Aussie accent, hat, big ass knife, the works, as a croc specialist hired by Gereco executive Joanna Pacula(..wasted in the stereotypical role of corrupt administrative executive who denies any involvement with the gigantic beast her facility let free on innocent people). Charles Napier is the local sheriff whose town is in danger and Jane Longenecker is his hot daughter, who works at the animal shelter. Soap opera star Matthew Borlenghi is Longenecker's love interest, a local artist who welds sculptures(..his brother is a victim of the croc). Of course, this skill will come in mighty handy when our heroes set up a created trap for the croc, hoping to poison it with carbon monoxide.<br /><br />The croc itself is never the least bit convincing as it rampages through a reserve looking for food, the special effects of a low grade variety. In regards to Roger Corman productions dealing with renegade dino-monsters, I stick with Carnosaur. The monster here is essentially a crocodile standing on it's hind legs, often upright as it pursues potential victims. I felt Mandylor and the filmmakers were spoofing Crocodile Dundee with his croc hunter, and this imitation might amuse where the monster itself fails. Borlenghi and Longenecker actually have pretty good chemistry together on screen. As expected, Pacula gets her commuppance in hilarious fashion(..gulp).

I'm not a big fan of movie musicals. 'Annie' was a stage show I loved but the movie was a flop. The 'Phantom Of The Opera movies' (and I believe there were three) failed to match the Weber staging. But I LOVED this. The DVD will take a place of honour among my 'keepers.' Even though it's a movie adaptation, it somehow captures the flavour and the atmosphere of live theatre. Bette Midler, always a treat, is just exceptional in this role. There's great music, lots of laughs and even a tear or two. I've seen most of the big musicals of the eighties and nineties. Somehow I missed this one so there's no comparison to make. But if it gets revived I shall be first in line for tickets! But this movie is so good, I'll be in the odd position of wondering if the stage production will measure up to the movie.

The Buddy Holly Story opens on a shot of a yellow neon moon on the roof of a roller rink in 1956 Lubbock, Texas. As the credits start, the camera moves down from the moon to the parking lot, into the roller rink, past the concessions and across the rink to a small bandstand where a small band is doing their sound check. It's a tracking shot Welles and Scorcese would both appreciate. It cuts to Buddy Holly's bespectacled face peering down in rapt concentration as he grips the headphones and talks to a man putting this band on the radio. <br /><br />A young Gary Busey plays Buddy Holly and his performance is key. He has to somehow show the passion that Holly had for his music to make the film work. This is a rock and roll story without lines of coke chased with shots of heroin and a fifth of whiskey. This isn't about a man with several women to choose between in a sex scandalized, brood abandoned lusty tragedy. This is a film about a nice Texas boy who respected his parents and went to church and had the same girlfriend for 5 years and fell in love with rock and roll. Busey finds that spark and ignites it, his passion is clear and infectious. He really plays the guitar in the film and sings, its not overdubbed with Holly's recordings. Busey was a young guy in Hollywood in the seventies, a struggling actor and as much or more so a struggling rock musician as well. Thus, he gives a great performance, because although he isn't Buddy Holly, he's in a similar situation. <br /><br />His first song is the old Les Paul classic, 'Mockingbird Hill' and he has the country twang to nail it. Next a kid calls out for some bop, and against his two band mates (in reality the Crickets were 3 guys, but the down-sizing works fine for the film's limited narrative)he leads them wailing into 'Rocking with Ollie Vee'. The kids love it and the parents hate it. The DJ at the rolling rink tapes it and it is later released in New York without Buddy Holly even knowing it was ever recorded. This leads to the funniest scene in a film filled with humorous moments. An amped-up disc jockey from Buffalo calls up Buddy at home. The DJ has been playing 'That'll be the Day' for 12 hours and is going for 24. The cops are banging on the station's barricaded door. Holly is confused, but when the dust settles, he is quite thrilled. He tells the boys, and their meteoric rise begins. Dan Stroud as the drummer and Charles Martin Smith as the bassist round out the band nicely and have good chemistry with each other. There are problems but not overblown drama thats found in most rock (all?) biopics. The movie doesn't manipulate you either. Your emotions soar, but they're not manipulated. When the Crickets step onto the Apollo stage in Harlem, the first white group ever to play there, then rip into an electrically charged performance of 'Oh Boy' and win the audience over, my rock and roll loving ass got choked up and cried. Next, Busey and the boys make 'It's so Easy' sound funkier and more soulful than I would have believed possible. <br /><br />Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Buddy Holly's story will know where this movie will end. Holly died in a plane crash with Richie Valens and the Big Bopper way too young. We, as the audience know that, yet the movie is so well written, directed and lovingly acted that we forget it almost immediately. The movie isn't about his death, it's about his life and his place in rock and roll history. The film ends with his last performance and it's a good fifteen minutes of Busey rocking out possessed by the ghost of Buddy Holly. I was happy to hear him end it on 'Not Fade Away', my favorite of his songs. The film freezes before the end credits with the information about the plane crash, but I hardly noticed it. I was still thinking about how good that last song was.

I won't mention any of the plot, because, although it would be highly predictable anyway, the one notable plot twist is given away everywhere, in the movie comments, in the plot summary here, and even in the synopsis on my Netflix envelope. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that. Maybe. This film has a deceptively good cast, most of whom did creditable acting with the rather limited material at hand, including Donald Sutherland, Lesley Ann Warren, and Tia Carrere and Rosemary Dunsmore in smaller parts. It was impossible to like William McNamara, but that was clearly by design. And there were a couple of quick nude scenes by the callipygian Lenore Zann. But none of this brings the slightest recommendation from me. Don't any of these fine actors actually read these scripts before signing on?

This first time writer/director comes across as a season pro with 'Two Coyotes'. Most action dramas are all about the action first then the story. But this picture works the other way around. If this is just the beginning for this director, then Hollywood will soon be making room for this rising star. Independent movie making has once again reached a new level.

Quite possibly the nicest woman in show business, and the sexiest, Debbie gives another fine performance here. Although her work in American Nightmare was far superior, she is still worth watching in this film.<br /><br />The cast is filled with your typical Melrose Place types, chiseled features and seductive curves, that I had never seen before. Other than Debbie, Laura Nativo was the only actress I had seen before, in the similar Delta Delta Die.<br /><br />The plot centers around a group of California arrogants who initiate poor naive Debbie Rochon into their clique. They tell her that they have a murder club, and that she must kill someone to be accepted. Debbie wants nothing more but to be accepted by these cool people, so she quickly kills a person, and now the group must decide what to do with her, after she fell for their joke.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Plentiful! Debbie Rochon occasionally has blood splattered all over her and all of the murder scenes are done in your face. Gore hounds will surely enjoy!)<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Plentiful as well! Debbie Rochon has several nude scenes as do many of the no-name actresses and actors. The pool party seems as just an excuse to get everyone naked; man and woman alike. Julie Strain also has a topless cameo but her character is gone after the first five minutes).<br /><br />STORY: $$ (Could have received a higher vote because the plot was very interesting and unique but the plot serves as filler between nude scenes. I understand that B-Rate films use nudity often, but this is borderline excessive).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (The acting is sub standard to say the least. Rochon is always a treat, easily the best B-Rate actress in the business today, but her character in American Nightmare was superior. Danny Wolske does a fine job as Debbie's object of lust but the other actors were nothing to write about).

Another slice of darkness and denial hiding beneath the surface of American suburbia, Imaginary Heroes chronicles the lives of the Travis family, all recovering following the suicide of their eldest son.<br /><br />The pair at the center of the film is mother and son Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) and Tim (Emile Hirsch), both acting out in different ways as a result of the death. While Tim experiments with prescription medication and his own sexuality, Sandy regresses to her former self, smoking marijuana and coming to terms with an old act of infidelity.<br /><br />The relationship between Sandy and Tim is explored well, especially when references are made to both of them being outcast from their own family: Sandy due to her affair and Tim, initially, due to always being in the shadow of his more successful older brother. Considerably less time is allowed for Sandy's husband Ben (Jeff Daniels) who, in a devastating depiction of denial, orders Sandy to make an additional plate of food for his dead son and place it in his old spot at the dinner table. Michelle Williams' older sister Penny is underwritten and could easily be taken out of the film.<br /><br />Despite its long runtime, Imaginary Heroes doesn't explore its many subplots as much as the individual stories deserve, while some of the movie's black comedy doesn't translate as well as writer/director Dan Harris may have liked. And the depiction of a disturbed family dynamic isn't depicted as strongly as the many other films out there with similar ideas. But despite some issues, the central performances from Weaver and Hirsch are stunning, and easily carry the film to its successfully subdued conclusion.<br /><br />Rating: B-

This film got roasted by the boys at MST3K, but it's actually a neat and nasty piece of low-budget film noir. The plot is tight, the characters are believable (within the good-boy-gets-obsessed-with-bad-girl genre), the pacing is solid, the climax is well-handled, and the cast is bolstered by several fine character actors. True, most of the time you want to hit the protagonist with a brick, but he's actually quite effectively creepy when he plays the mastermind. The scenes between him and his dad are quite powerful, in a minimalist kind of way. Sure it's depressing, but that's the point. Good movie.

Tsui Hark's visual artistry is at its peek in this movie. Unfortunately the terrible acting by Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung (I felt the urge to strangle her while watching this, it's that bad :) made it difficult to watch at times.<br /><br />This movie is a real breakthrough in the visual department. When I first saw this, my jaw dropped repeatedly and I thought to myself that I've never seen anything remotely like it but this is how it should be done in order to do full justice to the mythical world of Chinese historical kung-fu novels! Without a doubt this is one of the best-looking Chinese historical kung-fu epic ever made.<br /><br />But alas, Tsui Hark hasn't improved much in the writing department, and the story and dialog are rather juvenile (his apparent obsession with the silly and overly-long depiction of the evil guys didn't help either). To make it worse, this movie is very badly cast. They decided to use the 'hot' popular Hong Kong idols as lead characters, but unfortunately both Ekin Cheng and especially Cecilia Cheung are totally unsuited for historical kung-fu dramas because they lack the nobility and mystique that such characters are supposed to embody. Adam Cheng Siu-Chow and Brigitte Lin in the 1983 version are infinitely better.<br /><br />I wish that someday Zhang Yi-Mou and Tsui Hark can join forces and produce a movie that has the visual artistry of Tsui but with the maturity and story-telling poetry of Zhang...

Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's 'The Tempest') 'Rich and Strange' by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's 'The Crowd' is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.<br /><br />*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph

I watched the first show of each series just to see and what a waste of time. The girl from Emmerdale she was fat so yeah she should be in fat friend but no one every lost weigh.<br /><br />Like Itv made a big mistake with this.<br /><br />Bad Girls is 100times better.<br /><br />I feel that the whole show was just about large people trying to loose weight but never did then they tried to have love storyline oh my god what a a waste of time and also air time. This show has not been repeated on ITV2/3/4 yeah thats how good it is.<br /><br />I would say do not by th box sets just a waste of money.<br /><br />BEWARE

Oz is by far the best show ever to grace television. Better than The Sopranos, yes, ER, yes, CSI, absolutely. Uncompromising, daring, and utterly disturbing yet profoundly moving. Oz took us past any image of prison that anyone had ever conjured up on television. Tom Fontana truly did a brilliant job with the writing. No topic is taboo. Rape, drugs, murder. Oz is evidence of just how good TV can be. It follows characters of all different backgrounds and all different races, but always comes back to your everyman Tobias Beecher, in jail for vehicular manslaughter. We see what we don't want to see, pain, death, mayhem. Oz will disturb you, make you cringe, make you look away, but most of all it will make you think. To see Oz is to see a truly magnificent television production

Trite and unoriginal. It's like someone watched Immortal Beloved and Amadeus and decided to mix them together and, in the process, steal other formulaic plot parts from other movies to make another one. As with most historical movies nowadays, there are some inaccuracies as history is manipulated to better suit the story, which is understandable for the most part. For example, during the remaining days of Beethoven's life, it was necessary for other people to write down what they needed to say in order for him to understand them. That, of course, would have been a nuisance to have to show on screen. The script, although filled with some quotable lines, doesn't quite capture the feel of that time period and, coupled with some bad acting, seems rather contemporary. Diane Kruger is nice enough to look at but she still has lots to improve on her craft. Ed Harris doesn't work for me as Beethoven and I mostly blame Gary Oldman for that. Overall, not a very good interpretation of the musical maestro's life. Better just find yourself a copy of Immortal Beloved.<br /><br />http://iwascalledclementine.multiply.com/reviews

Hadnt heard a lot about this movie, except it being National award and Oscar entry. Its a Marathi movie, n I cant make out apple from orange in marathi. But when I saw the movie playing on DD1 late Sunday night, I just got glued. Now I am no judge of cinematic techniques and acting skills. But I have watched a good number of movies, of various genres, and for an average viewer, I will highly recommend this movie. The feel is very earthy and realistic, though there are some melodramatic moments. Watch it to feel human. Lately haven't seen any movie, which touches heart, especially in Hindi cinema. the crowning achievement of the movie is when the young kid returns home. The camera moves around to reveal the kid, wearing black glasses, having lost his eyes, the kid hears the other kids splashing in the water and starts clapping. I was awestruck. And the two hours I spent watching the movie - very much worth it :-)

John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.<br /><br />My Grade: D+

I've never read a good review for 'Vanity Fair' and I can't understand why. For something that was 'rushed through in ten days' it all comes off surprisingly well. Though admittedly 'Becky Sharp' is a better movie and Miriam Hopkins a better Becky, there's nothing to stop this one from getting a solid 9/10. At times, Myrna Loy might seem just too cute and nice to be playing an utter bitch, but at other times she just has to squint her eyes and the air temperature drops a dozen degrees. Meow! The move to a more modern setting did not work against 'Vanity Fair' and the only thing that really causes some conflict is the casting. Barbara Kent (Amelia) was under 5 feet in height, and few of the leading men were very tall either - this all coming together to make Loy look like an absolute Amazon woman!<br /><br />'Vanity Fair' is similar to 'Craig's Wife' in that no matter how bad the main character is, you have to love her. And you know she deserves her comeuppance, and then some, but you still feel sorry for her when she gets it. Though based on the same story as 'Becky Sharp', this version had a different ending, which is interesting to see because most of the rest of the films were almost identical. For pleasure value, the ending of 'Becky Sharp' is ultimately more enjoyable, although aesthetically, and from the flow of the story, there is no doubt that the ending of 'Vanity Fair' is the better one, whether or not you actually like it.

A coach who used to be good, but has had to move to a new area to get away from what he once did; a team of no hopers; the star player who has a row with the coach; the assistant coach with an alcohol problem, the little guy who gets kicked around scoring the winning basket; the whole town against the coach (all except for the leading lady). It's the old story - right out of the British comic books, where a team of speccy geeks and fatties take on the Brazilians at soccer and win.<br /><br />This film, admittedly well put together, is full of these clichés. The only part I didn't predict was when at the town meeting, the star player suddenly decided to side with the coach. No reason was ever given. It seemed like a very strange thing to do seeing that everything was going his way hitherto. Maybe he just felt sorry for the poor guy.<br /><br />Gene Hackman plays a locker room Popey Doyle. I am sure that an actor of Dennis Hopper's calibre found nothing particularly challenging about his role. The same can be said about Barbara Hershey.<br /><br />All in all, a film full of clichés that might have been done a lot better than it was.

To sum this documentary up in a few words is next to impossible. Every fiber of your body tells you that this is not happening right from the opening montage of rapid-fire images, through to the last shot of the clean up at Ground Zero, but every frame is real. The story was thought up by two French brothers living in New York. Jules (28) and Gideon (31) Naudet (pronounced 'Nau-day') want to make a documentary on New York City Firefighters, beginning with a 'newbie' from the academy and follow him through the nine month probationary period to full-fledged firefighter. Seeking the help of their close friend, actor James Hanlon (36), an actor and firefighter at Station 1, Engine 7, the Naudets sift through the 'Probies' at the academy and find one, Tony Benetakos to focus the bulk of their documentary on.<br /><br />Tony becomes the butt of jokes and slowly learns the ins and outs of station life through the members of this close-knit family. Firefighters have a superstition about 'Probies.' It is that they are either 'White Clouds' or 'Black Clouds,' meaning that with the latter, all kinds of fires follow the 'Probie.' The former means that very little fire activity follows, but one day, there will be the mother of all fires. Tony is a 'White Cloud.' After some initial growing pains, Tony settles into the firehouse as if he were a seasoned vet. Then the unthinkable occurs....<br /><br />September 11, 2001 begins with a clear blue sky and an early morning call to go and see about a supposed gas leak not far from Wall Street. Because Jules has had little camera experience, Gideon hands a camera to his younger brother and tells him to ride with the chief, T. K. Pfeiffer. Arriving at about 8:42, the firefighters begin to use their gas detectors over a grate. Then the sudden roar of what seems to be a low flying airplane rips past the scene, and as Jules pans upwards, we see the first strike of the day. American Airlines Flight 11 smashes into the face of the North Tower of 1 World Trade. Pfeiffer orders his men into the fire engine and they head for the World Trade Center. Once there, Jules asks to accompany the Chief into the tower. Pfeiffer tells Naudet to stick close to him. Once inside, the full impact of the growing disaster begins to show on the faces of the men whose sole purpose is to save lives. <br /><br />Gideon Naudet decides to leave the firehouse and walk down to the impact area. Once there, he captures the impact of the second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, with 2 World Trade. He knows Jules is with Chief Pfeiffer inside the towers. Watching and capturing the crowds' reaction to the unimaginable, Gideon begins to capture on tape the growing fear in Lower Manhattan. Inside tower one, Jules records the last view the world, or loved ones will have of their sons, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, husbands, boyfriends, friends as one by one, each firefighter, carrying 60 lbs of equipment begin the long arduous climb up 80 stories to rescue the injured and trapped. Jules also catches the last glimpse Chief Pfeiffer will have of his brother, Kevin, as he leaves to do his selfless duty. Also caught on video is the gutwrenching sound of falling bodies hitting pavement from victims choosing to jump from the higher floors above the impact zones, sooner than face death at the hands of the flames and smoke. But Jules is respectful, never once does he capture a sensationalistic moment...the money shot. His work is professional through his baptism of fire. He also catches the sight of debris falling from tower two after it is hit by the second plane and the ordered way the firefighters evacuated civilians from the building. Then Jules is caught in the collapse of the south tower and the first official victim is taken: Father Michael Judd, the Chaplain for the fire department. Then as Jules and Chief Pfeiffer make their way from the fallout of the collapse of tower two, tower one begins its structural collapse. <br /><br />What results is a breathtakingly, poignant view from inside Ground Zero as Jules and Gideon work separately to document that day. Not knowing if either is alive, each fearing the worst. As each firefighter arrives at the firehouse, they greet each other with joyous hugs at having made it back. And in one moment of overwhelming emotion, Jules and Gideon are reunited. As Jules cries on his brother's shoulder, Gideon embraces his younger brother as Hanlon makes the filmmakers the subject. There is one fearful moment when Tony Benetakos, who left the station with a former chief, is believed to have been lost...but returns to the fold, this 'Probie' has proven himself.<br /><br />Shown with only three interruptions, 9/11 is a stunning achievement in documentary filmmaking. It ranks up there with the Hindenburg footage in showing history as it unfolds. The Naudets are to be commended for their deft handling of the subject. In lesser hands, the tendency would be toward the sensational, but the Naudets temper their eye toward dignity and compassion. Narrated by Hanlon, we get the feel of his words as he takes the audience through the events of September 11. Robert De Niro hosts the program in a sombre, restrained way. He never seeks the camera for his own glory, rather he lays out the scenes you are about to see. I also commend CBS for their bravery at airing this special. Chastised for their attempt at grabbing ratings, they temper their editing toward the emotions of the relatives of those who perished. This is a must see for anyone who needs to be reminded of what true heroism is. It isn't about dribbling a basketball, or selling an album of hate lyrics...9/11 is about humanity at its best. Heroism at its finest and the cost of freedom. <br /><br />

As a film buff, I obviously had read all the excruciating reviews and funny, sarcastic comments about this film (my favourite being Woody Allen's quip 'If I had my life to live over again I wouldn't change anything ... except for seeing the musical remake of Lost Horizon'). Therefore I've never been able to watch it without smirking at the choreography/set/songs etc. Just recently I came across a widescreen DVD and watched it for the first time in years, along with a friend who had never heard of the film's reputation. HE really enjoyed it, and - after trying to block out all the negative prejudices I obviously had about the film - so did I. There is nothing especially bad about Lost Horizon, and it is far more enjoyable and watchable than many other early 1970's movies. It isn't even especially camp. The lyrics to some of the songs are rather repetitive and simplistic, but this isn't really apparent when hearing them for the first time or having the flaws pointed out in advance so you are ready to scoff at them. As for all the reviewers who claimed the cast cannot sing in tune, this criticism falls apart since Liv Ullmann, Olivia Hussey and Peter Finch were dubbed (brilliantly too, as the vocals match their speaking voices perfectly), and Sally Kellerman has a really lovely and totally unique singing style. Vocally, Kellerman's duet with Olivia Hussey on 'The Things I Will Not Miss' is excellent. Special mention should be made of the legendary Hollywood star Charles Boyer's brilliant performance as the High Lama - and his comments about mankind destroying itself are chillingly apt to today's fractured world. I wouldn't claim for a second that Lost Horizon is a masterpiece (The things I wouldn't miss about it are the uninspired choreography, and Bobby Van's 'Question Me An Answer' number, which could easily have been cut), but if you haven't even seen Lost Horizon, or haven't seen it for some time, try watching without that 'Oh boy, let's have a laugh at this pile of junk' attitude, and you will be surprised at how enjoyable it actually is.

Rating: 4 out of 10<br /><br />As this mini-series approached, and we were well aware of it for the last six months as Sci-Fi Channel continued to pepper their shows with BG ads, I confess that I felt a growing unease as I learned more.<br /><br />As with any work of cinematic art which has stood up to some test of time, different people go to it to see different things. In this regard, when people think of Battlestar Galactica, they remember different things. For some it is the chromium warriors with the oscillating red light in their visor. For others, it is the fondness that they held for special effects that were quite evolutionary for their time. Many forget the state of special effects during the late 70s, especially those on television. For some the memories resolve around the story arc. Others still remember the relationships how how the relationships themselves helped overcome the challenges that they faced.<br /><br />Frankly, I come from the latter group. The core of Battlestar Galactica was the people that pulled together to save one another from an evil empire. Yes, evil. The Cylons had nothing to gain but the extermination of the human race yet they did it. While base stars were swirling around, men and women came together to face an enemy with virtually unlimited resources, and somehow they managed to survive until the next show. They didn't survive because they had better technology, or more fire power. They survived because they cared for and trusted each other to get through to the next show.<br /><br />The show had its flaws, and at times was sappy, but they were people you could care about.<br /><br />The writers of this current rendition seemed to never understand this. In some ways he took the least significant part of the original show, the character's names and a take on the story arc and crafted what they called nothing less than a reinvention of television science fiction. Since that was their goal, they can be judged on how well they accomplished it: failure. It was far from a reinvention. In fact it was in many ways one of the most derivitive of science fiction endeavors in a long time. It borrows liberally from ST:TNG, ST:DS9, Babylon 5, and even Battlefield Earth. I find that unfortunate.<br /><br />Ronald D. Moore has been a contributor to popular science fiction for more than a decade, and has made contribution to some of the most popular television Science Fiction that you could hope to see. One of the difficulties that he appears to have had was that there could be no conflict in the bridge crew of the Enterprise D & E. That was the inviolable rule of Roddenberry's ST:TNG. Like many who have lived under that rules of others who then take every opportunity to break the rules when they are no longer under that authority, Ron Moore seems to have forgotten some of the lessons he learned under the acknowledged science fiction master: Gene Roddenberry. Here, instead of writing the best story possible, he has created a dysfuntional cast as I have ever seen with the intent of creating as much cast conflict as he could. Besides being dysfunctional, some of it was not the least bit believable. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that someone unprovokedly striking a superior officer would not get just a couple of days 'in hack,' they could have gotten execution, and they never would have gotten out the next day. It wouldn't have happened, period, especially in time of war.<br /><br />The thing that I remembered most of Ron Moore's earlier work was that he was the one who penned the death of Capt. James Kirk. He killed Capt. Kirk, and, alas for me, he has killed Battlestar Galactica.

The story is airtight from the beginning until the latter third of this movie. Then the story gets more and more outrageous. The Main character portrayed by Marina Sudina is fantastic and had a difficult role. This could have been a super-great movie had the ending been more realistic.

Can you say 'Boring' with a capital B! It's slower than watching grass grow! It's more boring than watching paint dry! You'll sleep right through it.....we all did.....don't do it...you'll regret it!

Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant 'emotionally powerful' scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left.

Grosse Pointe Blank was really quite a below average film. Its hit man theme is very dry and is more like a romantic comedy than a hit man thriller. The acting is very normal. The performances are extremely embarrassing at times with many characters seeming very 'eccentric' and that really annoyed me. The whole reunion and the 'Wow, I haven't seen you in 10 years!' element is extremely cheesy and many scenes just drag on, especially nearer the end when they are at the actual reunion party and the characters are going through each of their former classmates one by one greeting them. It just all seemed very tacky, pointless and was poorly executed. <br /><br />Dan Akroyd's role as a 'rival' assassin is very sparse. He only seems to appear once at the very beginning and right at the very end in a 'final show down' which is hugely hyped up but doesn't deliver at all.<br /><br />The soundtrack is also very mediocre. The bulk of the songs that are in this film are straight out of the 1980's and with the exception of two or three, are very bad. Hearing duff songs over quite a duff film just adds to the negativity that surrounds this film.<br /><br />I could go on and on about how little things were annoying and were just very bad such as the very few action sequences that came and went very quickly, the lack of character development and how poorly the whole thing was constructed in that department, the way that half the time you forget that Cusak's character is even a hit man at all as the element is so non-existent.<br /><br />Even the way the comedy thinks it's funny; but it isn't. I didn't laugh once during this movie. Sure, maybe I smirked now and again but my only REAL feel good point was when I realised the movie was nearly over!<br /><br />Please, don't waste your time with 'Grosse Pointe Blank' despite the relatively high (but badly incorrect) IMDb rating. I've seen films that are better than this film that have lower rating on this site which tells you that there ARE better films out there. Just don't bother with this one.

I first started watching The Outer Limits back in 95 when I was 10, and it just blew my mind every week with each episode, every episode had a twist and each week I couldn't wait for the next. How the writers managed to do every episode so well and make it different from each over a course of 7 seasons is beyond me. This show manages to teach us about life, robotics, Alien and human encounters, and an insight into more of the paranormal, and how it affects the people. What really makes this a good show are the characters in each episode, they really show emotion and are really good actors. What you'll also notice each week is an actor/actress you'll know from a past show which is pretty neat in its own way.<br /><br />If you wanna chill out, and sit back with a good Sci-Fi show, then the Outer Limits is for you

I saw The Greek Tycoon when it first came out in 1978. I found it extremely boring. I thought it was no better than a travelogue except for one thing: For the first time in my life I realized why it would be good to be rich. Seeing the scenery off Aristotle Onassis' yacht and getting my first real peek into the lifestyle of the rich and famous opened my eyes. To paraphrase Martha Stewart: It was a good thing. Funny, I don't remember the sex scene. I hadn't seen the movie since it was on the big screen and found the lovemaking session with the mistress memorable this time. Maybe because I was younger and single back then, it was no big deal.

Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.<br /><br />Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is 'avant-garde' or just 'stupid.' Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to 'Amazing Grace' before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.<br /><br />This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie.

What to say about a movie like Rock Star? A lot actually! This is the type of movie that is almost tailer made for the critics to slam. It is also a movie I, as a MAJOR Hard Rock fan enjoyed-no-loved actually-while all the while being very consciously aware of its many flaws and that the movie, while a decent effort in some respects missed the chance it had to escape into greatness and become a rock movie classic. Oh well....<br /><br />I loved this movie-and would see it again and again-but I know that's purely based on my own personal tastes-Rock Star is a movie that will appeal to anyone who has experienced elements of the rock or hard rock lifestyle and wants to go down the road to nostalgia. It was a great time for metal heads. And it's nice to have a movie that effectively captures that(long forgot by many non-rock fans.) time effectively, as I think that Rock Star has done. That is one of the film's strengths, the concert footage. You will feel like your right there with them and how could any hard rock fan not love that? As far as setting the atmosphere Rock Star gets a 10 of 10. It also gets a 10 of 10 for pure entertainment. If you want a movie to just let yourself go and free flow into some great memories of good times past, then this is the movie for you. It is also the reason why I loved this movie so.<br /><br />But it isn't a great movie. I understand that and were it my actual job to review movies professionally, I'd probably have to be a bit hard on this one. The problem with Rock star is the character development.<br /><br />What is wrong with the character development is this, there isn't any. None. The movie has certain scenes-few and far between but they ARE there-that DO touch on greatness:WARNING BRIEF SCENE SPOILERS: 3 examples- 1)when Izzy makes his debut on stage(including the fall he takes)<br /><br />2)The first 'after show' party with Emily(Anniston and Izzy.)<br /><br />3)Backtracking a little-In the beginning when the original lead singer is casually dismissed(fired)-the whole 'business as usual' tone sets the stage for what's to come. It's played very effectively.<br /><br />But the problem is, nothing ever does come. There is little to no character development of anyone in this movie, peoples' persona's are merely touched on, but never fully explored. I don't think that's the fault of the actors/actresses,particularly Anniston who tries hard, they just are not given much to work with. It's just that the script was weak and lacked the ability to go beyond the 'formula' feel into true movie depth. Rock star was so sugarcoated at times(including towards the end) it was almost ridiculous. And , though, those scenes I mentioned WERE outstanding and very believable, sadly much else in the movie wasn't.<br /><br />Another reviewer mentioned the lack of buildup towards the end and I agree but there was actually a lack of buildup about ANYTHING. WHY does Izzy leave at the end? Because he misses his girlfriend and the band won't let him write songs? It tests the limits of believability. And, frankly the end was just corny. Made no sense and had no reality to it at all.<br /><br />Watching this, it's almost like watching a movie where the makers of it said: OK, this happens here and then this happens and then this etc etc etc. By the end it's no longer a movie about a boy who's dream came true, it's just another thickly formulated love story. And you wonder why so much detail is left out....<br /><br />I hope I'm not being to hard on Rock Star because I truly loved it-but not for the right reasons. I would have liked to love this as a great movie about the highs and lows of rock fame. Instead I loved it for it's 80's period feel, the clothes, the hair, the lights, the life.... Although many others loved it to, I suspect most are people who lived the life of a rock fan, like I did or some who play. I'd have liked to see the movie cross over and just be respected for being a good, well told movie, instead of a cliché. I think, one of the problems was the length. I myself, hate over long films but this was one that really should have been longer, if a movie is done really right, the length is not even felt-there is just to much to the story for it to be as short as it was-that's one reason why there doesn't seem to be much development of either the story or the human beings portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />So-to wind down-this is a movie you can greatly get into- but not a great movie. See it for fun. See it for entertainment. See it to go back to that great, great space in time when metal wasn't just a part of life, it WAS life-and for those non rock fans-see it to get a little glimpse into a life that meant and still means so much to so many of us.

Sheba Baby, is another Pam Grier Blaxploitation film. It was one of Pam's less visceral films of this genre. Pam plays Sheba Shane, who's a Chicago gumshoe. Sheba's father is the owner of a small loan company, in Missouri. When local mobsters try to run her father of of business, Sheba goes after the bad guys.<br /><br />Pam Grier had already made her mark in Blaxploitation films, by the time Sheba Baby came along. Fans of both Coffy and Foxy Brown, know that Pam is capable of an explosive intensity as an actress. In Sheba Baby, the fiery performance that viewers had come to expect from Pam, wasn't as evident in this film. Not that Pam doesn't kick-butt in Sheba Baby. She's just not as much of a runaway-train vigilante, as she was in her previous Blaxploitation films.<br /><br />The supporting cast in this film, are a distinct disappointment. So Sheba Baby is Pam's film, through and through. And though Pam's a bit more subdued than in her other films, she still gives a compelling performance in Sheba Baby. This film is definitely worth your time, if you're an ardent Pam Grier fan.

Mickey Rooney (as Mi Taylor) is a young man drifting along the figurative road to ruin, where he meets 12-year-old Elizabeth Taylor (as Velvet Brown) - she adores horses, but he has a sad history with the animals. Ms. Taylor is enamored with Mr. Rooney's horse-sense; she takes him home, and gets him room and board with her family. They are supported very well by Anne Revere and Donald Crisp (as Mr. and Mrs. Brown). Butch Jenkins and Angela Lansbury are Taylor's strained siblings.<br /><br />The plot of 'National Velvet' is implausible to a fault; for example, the circumstances leading to Taylor's ride in the 'Big Race' are quite a stretch (but were likely more believable on paper). Still, the characters' connection to horses, and to Ms. Revere's character are nicely conceived. Rooney and Taylor are excellent in the starring roles; there is a balance between Rooney's fading 'child star' and Taylor's exuberant new 'child star', which adds depth to their characterizations.<br /><br />The excellent performances of Rooney and Taylor are further enhanced by fine direction, photography, and editing from Clarence Brown, Leonard Smith, and Robert Kern. A sentimental classic. <br /><br />******** National Velvet (12/14/44) Clarence Brown ~ Mickey Rooney, Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Revere

Eytan Fox did it again : move the viewer's heart in a modest story taking place in an overwhelming mess. The movie also succeeds in describing so perfectly and subtly the atmosphere of the incredible city that is Tel Aviv.<br /><br />I was there a month ago and it is all there : the lifestyle, the relationships, the heart-beating city, the mess, the chock of utopian mindsets in the most light-hearted, blithe and oblivious megalopolis ever.<br /><br />Strongly recommend: it is a voyage for the heart and the mind, with an interesting perspective to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.<br /><br />Nota Bene: There is central gay plot in the movie. If you do not think you are too gay-friendly, be prepared to be challenged and finally see it as 'just love'. (and don't worry: the chick is hot too!)

It was a movie that made ya think a little. Some parts a little cheesy, some parts pretty good. Plot did thicken at times and just when you thought Angella (Sandra) found a friend the friend was fraud or dead. All I got to say is that DENNIS MILLER should have been in the whole movie. His character was the best, very refreshing after all the crap Angella went through. He would have lifted me and Angella through the dumps.

I am surprised that everyone (even the critics) seems to think this was a good movie. It was the most clichéd thriller ever made that I have seen. We have the 'bad guy' who wants to force the 'good guy' (or girls in this case) to do something or face the consequence. The 'good girl' in this movie must use her smarts and skills to defeat the 'bad guy' and save the day and her loved ones. Using charisma, bravery, and even luck to save the day. <br /><br />Where to begin? Well, a young woman by the name of Lisa Reisert meets a young man by the name of Jackson Rippner (nice name) at an airport. One coincidence leads to another and soon it seems as if fate is bringing these two together. Sharing drinks, sitting next to each other, seemingly getting along in every way... Is there more to this strangeness? Could these two be meant for each other? Does 'fate' have a reason for their strange and random encounter? <br /><br />Well, as it turns out, unfortunately yes. Jackson needs to Lisa to help him assassinate the Director of Homeland Security by moving him from one room to another so that his men can launch an attack on him. Oh, if she doesn't do this then her father is dead. Though we never learn the exact reasons why and who is really behind this madness, Jackson more then explains how this is going to happen and why its in Lisa's best interest to help him.<br /><br />Of course, Lisa defeats his evil plans with her smarts and in the process stabs him in the neck, makes him trip over chairs, and hitting him with a field hockey stick. Oh, and before that, she leads him on wild chase through Miami airport where she gets passed post 9 11 security and steals a car that she later uses to run over the man who was ordered to kill her father. <br /><br />Yeah, right.<br /><br />First of all, I find it strange that a man like Jackson who can get his hands on high tech weaponry needs the help of a hotel manager. Couldn't he just sneak a bomb into the building? Wouldn't that make it safer for him and his team by leaving out any third parties? And why do characters like Jackson also explain everything they are going to do to someone they are threatening? Doesn't that make it easier to stop them by the same people? <br /><br />The actors did their best considering the movie they were given. Racheal McAdams and Cillian Murphy are still actors to look out for. Also, I believe that Jayma Mays (who played the 'loveable' Cynthia) will be someone we will see more of. It's just too bad they all were stuck with this.<br /><br />2 out of 10

Mary Pickford plays Annie Rooney--the daughter of a cop that lives in the tough part of town. She is a rough and tumble young lady of indeterminate age (somewhere between 12 and 16) who loves to scrap but down deep has a heart of gold.<br /><br />This is a very typical style of film for Mary Pickford. Like so many of her films, she plays a young girl--even though she was nearly 40 when she made LITTLE ANNIE ROONEY. And, like so many other stories, she was both plucky and courageous. As a result, I had a strong feeling of déjà vu. Now if you haven't seen her other films, this isn't an issue. However, she is essentially playing a character much like the one in SPARROWS or DADDY LONG LEGS--though these two other films are a lot better. Now this isn't to say this is a bad film--just that it's certainly not among her best work--mostly due to a rather 'schmaltzy' story that is very heavy on sentiment but not especially convincing. Entertaining but not essential viewing unless you are a huge fan of the silents.

I saw this movie twice through a pentecostal church my family attended in Nanaimo BC in the 1970's. I was of the tender age of 6, my brother 4, then again when I was 8 my brother 6. This movie terrified my brother and I and shaped how we viewed the world with distrust. It wasn't just the movie, but it was also the philosophy that engulfs so many 'christians' about the 'mark of the beast'and the rapture. This movie, the church, and a volatile neglectful upbringing, lead to severe paranoia towards the future. For years, I lived under the delusional affects of the church and fear of being forgotten by Christ. I am now 40 years old. Went through years of counseling. I once explained to a psychiatrist this movie and the belief system of the church and family. I was pegged with a delusional disorder. I actually began to believe this, it was my brother who reminded me, that this cultic philosophy actually happened. I no longer fear the future, I have come to terms with the fear injected into it's members by the church. I have taken this experience to fulfill a purpose, I am nearing my licensure as a Psychologist specializing in childhood trauma.

Man on fire, is definitely one of the best drama/crime thrillers I have ever seen. Despite having a slow beginning the story is so amazingly complex and sensitive that it sticks together rather well. This is Denzel Washington's perfect role, in which he plays a body guard, called Creasy that is tormented by his past and is an alcoholic but never gives up on his duty to save his latest protégée, Pita. Dakota Fanning plays Pita, the very smart, enthusiastic little girl that loves so many things, and acts in a very convincing manner, she has a great future ahead of her. As I said the story is somewhat complicated, in order to fully understand it, you must watch it a couple of times.<br /><br />This film is made in two parts, there's the first hour, where everyone is happy, nothing's wrong, everyone's just living their lives happily until the kidnapping of Pita occurs and where Creasy is almost killed. And then there's the second part, the rest of the film, where suddenly everything becomes complicated and somewhat gruesome and disturbing, when Creasy's recovered from his severe injury and starts chasing and killing the numerous criminals and 'La Hermamdad' that were responsible for the planning and execution of the kidnapping of Pita.<br /><br />Denzel Washington shows us his most up to date acting talents alongside many other talented actors which have a great future ahead of them. It is a real shame that this film hasn't been acknowledged enough, Washington really deserved another Oscar for his performance, and so did Fanning and the director. And even maybe the visual effects which were of very high quality.<br /><br />If you like excellent, slightly deranged, suspenseful thrillers, this is the one to see. The most amazing thing is that elements of this film are actually based on a real story and real characters! 10/10

Ho-hum. An inventor's(Horst Buchholz)deadly biological weapon is in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Unknowingly his son(Luke Perry)has been working on the antedote all along. Enter CIA agent Olivia d'Abo and the cat-and-mouse car chases and gunfire begins. Also in the cast are:Tom Conti, Hendrick Haese and an aging Roger Moore. Moore seems to haggardly move through this mess definitely not one of his better efforts. Perry fans will be accepting. d'Abo is wrong for the role, but nice to look at.

This movie is nothing more than Christian propaganda. It started off like a good sci-fi movie and then works a syrupy sweet Christian theme into the story which is totally unrelated. I had to turn it off half way through because I felt tricked into renting it. The catholic church has officially announced that aliens do NOT contradict belief in God.<br /><br />The movie is slightly entertaining despite this but the dialog is unbelievable, writing and acting is mostly rubbish and all in all, this movie is mostly a stinker to be avoided.<br /><br />There was obviously some research done into the phenomenon by the filmmakers, but then you quickly realize that it is only for the purpose to debunk and inject their own paranoid religious views into a valid interesting subject. If you are a zealous religious fanatic who believes in demons and angels , you will love this movie.

I would not like to comment on how good the movie was or what were the flaws as I am not a professional film critic and I do not have enough knowledge of making movies. What i do know is that making this kind of a movie in your very first shot is a big achievement and I would like to congratulate the Director for that. However, in some reviews, that i have read, critics have complained that Hiralal's relationship with his brothers was not highlighted, and his siblings were completely erased from the story. Now i would really like to raise a point here that as the name of the movie suggests, it is not a movie about Hiralal's brothers, it is a movie on the relationship of Mahatma Gandhi and his son Hiralal Gandhi, nothing more nothing less. If we start complaining about some characters being kept out of action in the movie, it would be a bit unfair because these characters don't fit in the picture, no matter how relevant they were in real life. So i think it would be better if we stick to the main idea and stop satisfy a critic in ourselves.<br /><br />Enjoy!!!!

This movie had terrible acting, terrible plot, and terrible choice of actors. (Leslie Nielsen...COME ON!!!) The one part I considered slightly funny was the battling FBI/CIA agents, but because the audience was mainly kids they didn't understand that theme.

Hard to imagine this film is based on a true story, and how Christy managed to accomplish the miracle is so heart-stirring. Daniel Day-Lewis is a chameleon, really hard to imagine how much effort he had done to create this disabled character. Watching him on screen is a shocking and breathtaking experience.<br /><br />The movie is not so pessimistic as I thought before, the story is kinda bright and intriguing. Christy is not despised by the normals, his life is also colorful and delightful, although we can be aware of the loneliness and the painful fetter through his eyes.<br /><br />One important factor of Christy's success is his mother's support which seems to be more touching, and the unknown actress Brenda Fricker also deserves her Oscar award for this role, this fat little middle-aged woman uses her all to make Christy's dream come true. So lucky for Christy!And Hugh O'Conor is also excellent as young Christy, what a performance for a child! The love story of Christy is very well-done, trustful. Christy wants love and nothing can derive him of the right to love, his crush on the beautiful Dr. Eileen Cole (surprisingly played by Fiona Shaw, I am deeply impressed with her role in Harry Potter series, the loathsome Aunt Petunia, so her appearance in this role is really beyond my mind, but anyway, any woman has her own youth...) is paranoiac and offensive, I do have sympathy for him, love is a two-edged sword, happiness and agony are just next to each other.<br /><br />Btw, Jim Sheridan's works are all good (IN America, THE BOXER etc.) except GET RICH OR DIE Trying', god knows why he chose to direct that crap! Really a career taint for him, what a pity!

I was amazed at the improvements made in an animated film. If you sit close to the screen, you will see the detail in the grass and surface structures. The detail, colors, and shading are at least an order of magnitude better than Toy Story. How they were able to pull off the shading, I will never know. I do hope that PIXAR will provide a documentary on how the film was produced so I can find out how all this was accomplished. Based on this film, I think animated films of the future will be judged on the basis of this film.

I gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention.

And I thought The Beach was bad, with the difference that this movie has one of the greatest actors of our time, Nicolas Cage. Don't blame him for the awful script, if any one can make any sense of what the hell was the point of that movie, give your self a pat on the back. Its a cross between The Village and a crappier script. Its starts off kinda catching your eye, and then as it goes further into the plot, it just makes no sense, and don't get me started about the ending!!!! What was that? The only thing that makes this movie exist is Nicolas Cage usual great humor, and his ability to be funny in the weirdest situations. If you go to a blockbuster and this is the only movie to watch, save yourself five bucks and just go back home and turn put some thing on fire and when some ones asks you why, just say the stupidest thing that comes into your mind, and there you go!

When this series aired I watched most of it. I think it was supposed to be a long running series in the vein of 'The Fugitive' and 'The Incredible Hulk' where the protagonist is being chased around the country looking for a solution to his problems. In this case the hero's problem is his progressive aging in reverse. I liked what I saw of these shows. The acting was good especially the sorrowful relationship between the lead character and his wife. Problem is: They cancelled it before it had a chance to end. (either that or I missed the last episodes).<br /><br />They never got a chance to wrap up the story either, knowing it had been cancelled. Poof it was just gone. However, like I said before I might have missed the last episodes. But my proof to the contrary is this: I rented the tape. Where I left off in the series. The lead character's wife dies in a fire started by a chase involving King's famous organization the Shop. While getting away hero is kidnapped. It ends with his friends realizing they have to go save him from the Shop. The end. Last episode. On the video: His wife does not die but escapes the fire with him. Right when he should get nabbed by the Shop, he and his wife share a weird moment then phase out of existence. Abrupt, silly and cheap to the extreme. They just wanted to put this video out and decided to tag on an ending not caring how bad it was. They might as well of just shown some stock footage of the first atomic bomb detonations. Almost Pythonesque.<br /><br />The show did have a cool opening title sequence set to the David Bowie song of the same name

The best part about this movie is that you can watch it over and over again n still not be content of watching it. I have watched this movie least 10 times over the past 12 years and still it makes me laugh as if i was watching it for the first time. I have great liking for good comics like the Orgazmo,Cheech n chong, Monty Python series and many others but this one in Hindi is one of my favorite outstanding movies. Some of them recently in Hindi are Golmaal,Munnabhai series and Herapheri series. SO all i can say is Hind comedy is finally evolving. But Andaaz Apna Apna is pretty different from the movies i have said above. Its what i call the Hindi stoned comedy and very few of the kind found around 1994 in Hindi cinema.Cheers to Rajkumar Santoshi for the brilliant movie.

Got to confess right up front that I didn't watch this entire movie. I missed the first hour during a Sci Fi Channel broadcast. Or was I spared the first hour? The other reviewers sum this one up nicely. It was badly conceived. Badly scripted. Badly acted.<br /><br />But the worst thing for me was the ADR. The entire film, which appeared to have been dubbed, sounded like it was done in somebody's garage. There was a voluminous echo to the words, which just served to make the bad dialog hang. And hang. And hang. Even a made for TV movie should have recognized this.<br /><br />And the idea that alternate dimensions are differentiated by color saturation went out in the 80s, folks.

I became a fan of the TV series `Homicide: Life on the Street' late in the show's run, but became a fan very quickly. It was a cop show unlike any other: visually different in its use of hand-held cameras, taking the viewer everywhere, with its multiethnic and mutiracial cast and their varying and fascinating personalities, and that it covered all of the good and bad of a police department, including the corruption and personality clashes that bubble up to the surface. <br /><br />Homicide: The Movie, the reunion follow-up to the series, is as good as a made-for-television film can be. After Lt. Giardello (Yaphet Kotto), now a candidate for mayor of Baltimore, is shot, the series' cast members are back to help find the killer. In addition, the cast members who left the force and those who died, also manage to have their place in the film. The intensity and fire that marked the series return, and the script bristles with the same fire that marked the series. All in all, a terrific TV movie.<br /><br />Vote: 9

This 'Debuted' today on the SciFi channel and all I can say is 'I am speechless' I taped it today so I could watch it tonight after work. I had high hopes, Now I am tearing apart the closets looking for a length of rope so I can hang myself. Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I wish I could say something nice like 'It was fun to make fun of this movie' but this movie is giving me nothing to work with. I know you are not supposed to post spoilers here with out prior warning but I am going to anyway 'This movie sucks' There I said it! They should show this flick to film students to show them what NOT to do! My nine year old niece could make a better film. The only decent thing about this film is the sound and/or sound track. OH! I just found a rusty C-clamp in my old tool box. I am going to put it on the thumb of my left hand and tighten it until the pain erases the memory of what my eyes have seen. I could just tape over this VHS but I think I will burn it in the fire pit instead. I could wash with soap but I fear I will never be clean again. Christmas is coming. Buy this movie and give it to people you hate. -Mike

Overall, I enjoyed the movie Scarlett. I am a huge fan of Gone with the Wind. I have read the book and seen the classic movie many times. I even have a small collection of Scarlett O'Hara ornaments and other things. I must admit that Gone with the Wind is my all-time favourite book and movie. Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable are remarkable actors and two of my favourites. Unfortunately, I was unable to read the book Scarlett, but I was excited to see the movie. Truth be told, the movie is not any where close to the calibre of Gone with the Wind and neither are the actors. However, Joan Whalley Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were pleasant actors in the roles and at many times Joan sounded like Vivian Leigh in her portrayal of Scarlett. Dalton also portrayed Rhett well at times. It took some time getting used to the different actors, but overall I really enjoyed it ,being the fan of Gone with the Wind as I am. One major disappointment was that Joan did not have green eyes and Scarlett O'Hara and Vivian Leigh both did. I also found the Lord Fenton absolutely appalling and I did not like his character. If you are a Gone with the Wind fan and/or enjoy romantic stories, see the movie Scarlett. However, do not expect it to be remarkable like Gone with the Wind. It is far from it although it is interesting with the new characters and so on. I am happy it is not a remake and some of the events in the story was what I imagined the continuation to be of the Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler love story. If you haven't seen it today, get it tomorrow…after all tomorrow is another day. :)

French production in which leading film directors from 11 countries were invited to create 11-minute short films conveying their reflections on the events of September 11.<br /><br />The film segments vary widely in content and quality. Two allude to U.S. complicity in terrorist acts (in Chile against Allende, who died on September 11, 1973, depicted in the segment by British director Ken Loach; and in Palestine by U.S.-backed Israelis, shown in the segment from Egyptian director Youssef Chahine). Two more recall other destructive acts (a Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, shot by Israeli director Amos Gitan; the Japanese 'holy war' against the west in WW II, by Shohei Imamura).<br /><br />Ironies abound in several stories. Shadows that darken the New York City apartment of a grieving old man suddenly disappear as the World Trade towers telescope to the ground in Sean Penn's piece, bringing the man momentary joy. But in this bright light he can finally see that his wife is really gone. In Mira Nair's film, based on a real incident, a missing young man, also in New York City, the son of a Pakistani family, is first presumed to be a fugitive terrorist, but later he proves to a hero who sacrificed himself trying to save others in the towers.<br /><br />There are poignant moments dotted throughout. Loach has his exiled Chilean man quote St. Augustine, to the effect that hope is built of anger and courage: anger at the way things are, courage to change them. Imamura tells us that there is no such thing as a holy war. Samira Makhmalbaf shows a teacher with her very young Afghan schoolchildren, exiled in Iran, trying to tell them about the events that have just transpired in New York. But they are understandably more impressed with a major event in their refugee camp, where two men have fallen into a deep well, one killed, the other sustaining a broken leg. This is comprehensible tragedy on a grand scale for the 6 year olds. <br /><br />Idrissa Ouedraogo, from Burkina Faso, creates a drama in which the son of an ailing woman spots Osama bin Laden in their village and gathers his buddies to help capture the fugitive terrorist, in order to get the $25 million U. S. reward. He tells his friends not to let any of the adults know their plans, for the older folks would merely waste the money on cars and cigarettes, while he plans to help his mother and others who are sick and destitute.<br /><br />It is Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (maker of 'Amores Perros') who provides by far the most powerful and chilling segment, one that, for the most part, shows only a darkened screen with audio tape loops of chanting and voices and occasional thudding sounds. Brief visual flashes gradually permit us to see bodies falling from the high floors of the towers, and it dawns on us that the thuds are these bodies hitting the ground. The sequence ends with elegiac orchestral music and a still shot, bearing a phrase first shown only in Arabic, then with a translation added: 'Does God's light guide us or blind us?' (In various languages with English subtitles) Grade: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 10/31/04). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.

There are four great movie depicting the Vietnam War. They are (in no particular order: Apocalypse Now, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, and finally Tigerland. All but Tigerland focus on the actual war and the men in it. Tigerland focuses on men in advanced training for the Vietnam War. The character of Boz is one of the most important depictions of a man questioning war, and the absurdity of it. This has been done in many war movies, but rarely in boot camp. Also, this is a very complex character, whose method with dealing with his feeling and emotions are the driving force of this movie. The character of Boz makes this movie so good. It is a shame it did not get a major release. It belongs on the shelf of any movie fan alongside the aforementioned movie titles.

This was an appallingly bad film! Ashley Rose Orr was horrible, she had none of Shirley Temple's charm AT ALL! Those ghastly smiles she would do when she scrunched up her piggy little eyes in a way that I think was 'supposed' to be cute and make the audience go - 'aahhhh bless!' It just made me want to slap her. She must have simpered 'oh my goodneth!' about a hundred times throughout the film. Also she could barely utter a sentence without accompanying it with a fake giggle. Horrible HORRIBLE film .. If I could rate it minus 10, I would. Don't waste your money on this piece of rubbish, go out and buy a genuine Shirley Temple film!

This is another one of those 'humans vs insects/eco-horror' features; a theme that was popular in the late 70's. Only you can't really call it horror. There's zero suspense and no gruesome events. In other words: this movie is pretty lame. It's not that it's really bad or something; it's just very boring. A construction site near a hotel uncovers a big nest of ants. Later on we learn that, probably due to different sorts of pesticides used in the past, their bite became poisonous. Some people get bitten and rushed to the hospital and it takes ages for the residents of the hospital to figure out what's going on. Robert Foxworth figures it out first and then you can see him go berserk with a digging machine for what seems like several hours. Then they flee in the house, waiting to get rescued. And, man, you should see all the efforts they make for rescuing them. I won't spoil too much, but at one point they even use a big helicopter. All the time when I was watching this, I sat there thinking 'Come on, people, you all got shoes on. Just run out of the building. I'm sure a bunch of ants won't catch up with you.' It's all pretty ridiculous.<br /><br />Of course, lots of close-ups of crawling ants are shown throughout the whole movie. Ants in the garden. Ants in the garbage. Ants in the kitchen. Ants on the roof. Ants in the bedroom. Ants in the sink. And the best part: Ants crawling on people's faces while the actors are breathing through straws. But when you see groups of ants in wider shots, they indeed look like black rice the set designers glued to the wall.<br /><br />One small surprise came near the end. No, it has nothing to do with a twist in the plot. It was just that Brian Dennehy made an appearance as a chief-fireman. Ehrr... What more can I say? This movie is called IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR but the box-art of my copy read ANTS and the title during the opening credits was PANIC AT LAKEWOOD MANOR. There you have it. Now, since this is a made-for-TV movie from the 70's, I'll be once again extremely mild in my final rating. Now, THE SAVAGE BEES, another 'humans vs insects' TV-movie from 1976 was much better than this one. I even feel I have to go back and add a few points to its rating after having seen ANTS. Lacking suspense, action, thrills, shocks and creepiness, the only thing you'll be left with after seeing ANTS is an annoying itch.

Obviously it seems many people really enjoyed this movie, and that's wonderful. It is certainly a very well-intentioned film, and I appreciate that in an era of heartless or emotionally damaging films. Unfortunately, the film has a lot of problems and it was not something I enjoyed watching.<br /><br />The primary problem is the writing. It is just not very funny. When something tries to be snappy or witty and fails, that is far worse than when it hasn't attempted wit at all. This film is to a great degree a series of 'snappy'-but-gentle come-backs between adult family members, none of which seem imaginative or apt. There is also a few central premises in the film that seem like too much of a stretch of coincidence or character motivation to be believable or really work. Some of the back story seemed more intriguing, and did serve to decorate the story around the edges fairly well, but it couldn't make up for the moment-to-moment flatness that pervaded almost all of the movie.<br /><br />The directing/editing doesn't support the film well, either, although I don't know to explain how exactly. Somehow things always seemed to me rather fake, and that the actors were forcing there way through unnatural material for the most part. They tried, and I don't fault any one person here. There were also too many small and charmless roles in it outside the immediate family.<br /><br />Not a good rental in my opinion, though, again, apparently a number of people found it very charming (I am 38; I suspect that perhaps people over 60 might enjoy this film more?).

The 221 episodes of 'The Lone Ranger' were originally broadcast on ABC from 1949 to 1957; and then for many years they played in local syndication. For most of the original broadcast years the series was ABC's most watched piece of programming. <br /><br />The new DVD set from Pop Flix contains the first 16 episodes (15 Sept-29 Dec 1949) and for some reason unknown to me episode 22 from the fifth season, for a total of 17 episodes (the same 17 available on last year's Mill Creek Entertainment release so these are probably in the public domain). These sets pretty much render 'The Legend of the Lone Ranger' movie superfluous as all three episodes that were combined in 1952 to form the movie are included in these releases. <br /><br />The early episodes hark back to radio as there is considerably more voice-over narration used as an introduction and to introduce key plot moments. <br /><br />The series itself was pure kiddie western with clear-cut good and evil distinctions and no romance. The title character (played by Clayton Moore) started out Texas Ranger John Reid. The first three episodes provide the background for his transformation to Lone Ranger status, his partnering with the Indian Tonto (Jay Silverheels), and the taming of his horse 'Silver'. <br /><br />There is an unambiguous code of positive morality infusing each episode. The Lone Ranger is totally good but he adopts the guise of evil. While a masked man in the west was normally feared by the good citizens and an Indian was distrusted, the Lone Ranger is feared by those who would do evil. One persistent theme is that when the Lone Ranger and Tonto first encounter an average citizen they are greeted with suspicion, and by the end of the episode the citizen has been convinced of their value. The trademark ending was a secondary character asking the question: 'who was that masked man?'. <br /><br />To really enjoy the series you must accept it for the simplistic morality tale it was intended to be. If you don't take it seriously and keep wishing for some self-reflexive campy parody elements you will only get frustrated. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I went to see this 3 nights ago here in Cork, Ireland. It was the world premiere of it, in the tiny cinema in the Triskel Arts Centre as part of the Cork Film Festival.<br /><br />I found 'Strange Fruit' to be an excellent movie. It is a bit rough around the edges, but for a low-budget movie that is to be expected! In general the acting (particularly from the main lead Kent Faulcon) is wonderful, the cinematography and direction excellent, and the script hugely entertaining and thought-provoking, with some nice set-ups and witty dialogue.<br /><br />The ending was a bit sudden, with no conclusion given to characters and events once the finale came to its gripping end ... but perhaps that's what the filmmakers were going for? It certainly did make the movie more unsettling. I did like the fact that the main character never came to terms with his mother on screen: it leaves you wondering whether or not he ever will, as in real-life sometimes these things are never settled. This was a good choice, to leave it unresolved rather than sentimentally wrapping it up!<br /><br />Taut and suspenseful throughout, 'Strange Fruit' is a hugely ambitious debut and I have high hopes for what the writer/director Kyle Schickner will unleash next. He - and his colleagues - are a talent worth watching.<br /><br />I hope 'Strange Fruit' gets a wider release soon, as more people deserve to see this movie, an above-average thriller with some original and insightful twists on homophobia and racism in America's Deep South.<br /><br />Highly Recommended: 7/10

I watch lots of scary movies (or at least they try to be) and this has to be the worst if not 2nd worst movie I have ever had to make myself try to sit through. I never knew the depths of Masacism until I rented this piece of moldy cheese covered in a used latex contraceptive. I am a fan of Julian Sans, but this is worse than I would hope for him.<br /><br />On the other hand the story was promising and I was intrigued...for the first minute and a half while the credits rolled and I had yet to see what pain looked like first hand. Perhaps there are some viewers out there that enjoyed this and can point me in the right direction, but then again I know of those viewers who understand if not commemorate me, especially when we had to turn the video off, and that simply is NOT done with our watching (we had to make one exception obviously). <br /><br />If it were up for a remake, I'd give it a chance so long as they had at most 1% of the original incorporated into it. That's all.

I suppose it depends on when one actually sees the movie for the first time that their impression is formed the way it is.<br /><br />I saw it as a child on TV back in 1973, when it was 'The Stranger' and I loved it. Such was the time when the space program to the moon was a reality, when shows like 'Search', 'UFO', and '6M$ Man' were showing a child of 12 of what the world could hold in their future. Adventure and technology.<br /><br />You got to see shows only once and that was when the network aired them. The only way people could slash your shows was by making their own parody of it; they didn't get to take your show and add in their own comments over it.<br /><br />I did not know what this concept of a 'pilot' was. I saw the movie and was hoping thru out that Stryker would get home; did not know that there was a possibility of it continuing beyond two hours.<br /><br />Back then, would I understood what so many people hate about the movie now? I doubt it because I don't remember it as such. Do I understand now? Not really for to understand the story, one must not see it from their perspective but rather from that of the characters in the movie.<br /><br />If one is watching as an American, it might be humorous about the lack of security in a police state.....but if one is a subject in that state, then compliance could be expected and security can be less. When things are suppose to be perfect, perfect to an extreme degree, perfect that one is not suppose to doubt, then one is not likely to question as quickly when things are out of order.<br /><br />The subplots of the movie are interesting such as the old man who remembers the time before but watches his words since he suspects that there are spies everywhere. Or that the police state values knowledge to some extent for they are careful about how they control or harm their brain power.<br /><br />These days, one is likely to know exactly what the movie is about before they see it, so much of the suspense, surprise is lost. But the duet between the astronaut and his doctor at the beginning of the movie is a perfect exchange if one considers that this movie was made well into the Cold War and the astronaut's biggest fear is that he has crashed in the USSR. One gets quite a distance into the movie before it becomes apparent that such a possibility is the least of his concerns.<br /><br />This is the primary difference between 'The Stranger' and 'Doppelganger'. The latter can be considered timeless since any comments it has about the USSR are comparatively minor and lost early on in the movie. In the former, those links are through out the movie, supposedly directly in the beginning and then as a theme variation after wards.<br /><br />All that said, despite my fond memory for the movie, it is rather easy to see that it would not have made it as a series. Each week, Stryker would make friends, Benedict would chase, Stryker would get away. Eventually, Benedict's society would get rid of him. Someone else would pick up the chase. A rut would develop. There might be a jab at something new such as perhaps another crew member from Stryker's mission showing up, but it probably would not be enough to keep the show going.<br /><br />If one goes in with the knives that others have used to slash the movie, odds are they will slash it as well. But if one remembers that this was made during the Cold War and what fears and estimations of the other side were during that time, of what the popular environment contained for the viewer, then they may find some entertaining and intellectual themes in it.

It's just such a joy to have watched this intriguing project. So refreshing and educating. Not only to a filmmaker, who can learn what can be achieved in 5 minutes of screen time, but also as audience, who may not be so ready for so much love in such short time.<br /><br />20 short films about love in Paris are all unique, but some of them, as expected, stand out. I thought the Tom Tykwer (Natalie Portman) segment was the best, although the mimes made me smile inside just the same.<br /><br />I clicked on 'spoilers' option for this review bus alas...what you read is a spoiler enough. Just watch it. Don't read what I write, but watch the movie instead.<br /><br />And smile.

Hey look, you don't watch this movie to change your life! But if you are female especially and have always had a little thing for Richard Gere; this movie is right up your street. Diane Lane and Richard Gere have on screen chemistry going way back. 'Nights in Rodanthe' is not a Oscar winner movie and it will probably be forgotten sooner rather than later but if you want an atmospheric, beautifully shot love story between MIDDLE AGED good looking people (they don't make your stomach turn and even when Gere is 'on top' he does not look too jowly) then this is the movie for you. I loved the theme of the story and it was quite relevant in many ways. Of course the whole thing was presented in a superficial way, glossed over and not really dealt with.....I mean I would have liked to know more about the father/son relationship between Gere and James Franco, but the story was really about the idea that a great love can CHANGE you for the better; whether it is a lover, a child, a friend etc. The theme of the film is about love and its mysterious ways. I was kind of surprised that James Franco took such a small part in this film but he is always good even for a few minutes screen time. I really liked this film because it was moving and sweet.

No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).<br /><br />The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.<br /><br />I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie!

Umberto Lenzi hits new lows with this recycled trash. Janet Agren plays a lady who is looking for her missing sister. It turns out the sister is part of a Jim Jones type religous cult in New Guinea. She hires a scruffy guide played by Robert Kerman to help her get to the cult's compound located in the jungle. This is another (!) cannibal movie, and I probably would have liked it if not for Lenzi padding this film out with scenes from his superior 'The Man from Deep River.' I mean every cannibal scene is directly lifted from this film, which I guess makes him about as credible as Al Adamson. I felt ripped off. ***SPOILER*** 1/2 star and that's for the dildo scene.

For reasons I cannot begin to fathom, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco) begins injecting wolf's blood into his dim-witted handyman, Petro (Glenn Strange). The result – Petro is transformed into a hideous (as hideous as someone with a bad wig and pointy teeth can be) killer beast. Dr. Cameron uses Petro to get his revenge against those in the scientific community who scoffed at and ridiculed his ideas (and why wouldn't they, Dr. Cameron's nuttier than a fruitcake).<br /><br />Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in 'God's domain' (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster.

Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are brilliant as Sir and his Dresser. Of course the play is brilliant to begin with and nothing can compare with the immediacy and collegiality of theatre, and I think you listen better in theatre; but on the screen we become more intimate, we're 'up-close' more than we are in the theatre, we witness subtle changes in expression, we 'see' better as well as listen. Both the play and the movie are wondrous: moving, intelligent, illuminating--of the backstage story of the company, of historical context, of the two main characters, and of the parallel characters in 'Lear' itself. If you cannot get to see it in a theatre (I don't imagine it's produced much these days) then, please, do yourself a favor, and get the video.

The premise, while not quite ludicrous, WAS definitely ridiculous. What SHOULD have occurred, by the second encounter with Tritter was that Tritter should simply be wasted. House hires some guy and de-physicalizes Tritter. In real life, Tritter would have been hauled up for harassment, the rectal thermometer episode would have been exposed in court, providing motive and opportunity and the hospitals lawyers would have made mincemeat out of Tritter and the particular department he worked for. He would be in prison as would anyone complicit in the harassment of House, Chase, Foreman, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy. The lawsuit would have won House a tasty settlement, enough to keep him supplied with Vicadin well into his old age. While Tritter would wind up somewhere driving a cab, trying to rehabilitate himself by doing good for people for two years before people tumbled to the fact that they'd seen it all before.

you can be fooled by your first impressions. as in, initial reactions to a movie, for example. as in, the first time i saw this movie i was bedazzled by the idea of it (first of all, i love black comedies). could even - despite being male, myself - empathise with the feisty girls' fervor to see their husbands deceased without delay. was tripped up by my own face-value (and, i do mean 'face-value') response to nicolette sheridan and a couple of the other delicious dames in the picture. it just goes to show you that you've gotta step back from a situation sometimes and see that it's bad (and not 'bad good,' either): the reason i'm giving this movie a '4' rating is because of ms sheridan and her gams (the rest of 'er is pretty good, too); but this movie has all the hallmark TV movie characteristics - which means you'll be disappointed if your a lover of movies made for the big screen. the story contains plot holes you could run a tunnel through - and i'll generally overlook holes in a plot if the overall thing does it for me; and i just experienced an incredible letdown the second time i saw it. i don't think it's a total waste of time, but....

-may contain spoilers-<br /><br />Clearly, who ever made this film must have had a lot of connections. I just can't see it any other way. What really surprises me is no one used the name Allen Smithee, and more surprising, everyone involved didn't use this name.<br /><br />Anyhow, where to begin. The bad dialogue, the crummy costumes, the sorry looking film stock, the unintentional comedy, the over-the-top characters, and more inconsistencies than George W. Bush's college career. I don't know what was funnier, the guy losing his arm because of a snowball, or the slow motion scene where all the baby Jack Frosts' were getting killed. Also, one of the great lines of all time was uttered in this film. 'How do we know it's him?' Like there's another mutant snowman who can talk and kill people with snowballs! A great camp film, but a very bad film overall.

American boy Jesse took the train to Vienna in order to take the plane for USA. On the train he met a French girl Celine. Although they met the first time, they talked like good friends. When the train stopped at Vienna, Jesse begged Celine to accompany him to have a tour on Vienna. Then the romantic story unfolded.<br /><br />At first they were cautious. The funniest scene was their listening to CD in music store. They peeked at each other, though their eyes did not contact. After in-depth conversation, they relationship became close. Then I saw the most romantic scene that they pretended to call their respective friend. Their deep love for each other was expressed completely by words.<br /><br />Love is a strange thing. When you really want it, it will not come as you wished. Love needs mutual understanding. Without it, love will not last long. Spiritual harmony is the most important for love.<br /><br />Excellent screenplay and performance resulted in huge success of the movie.<br /><br />One of the best romance movies. 9/10

Would it surprise you that my ears and eyes almost bled from watching and listening to this awful movie? My eyes almost bled from watching the awful animation and insipid, plotless, empty story. My ears almost bled from listening to the songs that sounded like they were sung by a chorus of howler monkeys. Then my brain almost melted because of this film's complete lack of intelligence. It's formulaic every step of the way. Talking animals are one thing, but a penguin who can fly just to keep with the 'dreams can come true' schtick? Show some more faith in the children's intelligence please. Next to Rock-A-Doodle, this is one of Bluth's worst.

This movie was absolutely terrible. The only explanation I can think of for the good reviews it received from some here is that they were written by people in the cast. It was actually painful to watch this movie. Even my grandchildren (ages 6-13) could not bear to watch it. As far as I know, this movie never made it to theaters and for good reason. It's as if some people were sitting around having a beer and said, 'Hey! Let's make a movie. Who wants to be in it?' It's that bad. Besides Luke Perry, who is only in a small part of the movie, I did not recognize a single other actor. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it is in this case. I liked Sandlot (I) and I generally like stupid and silly movies but this movie doesn't have a single redeeming quality. The people who wrote it don't have the slightest clue as to how children think, talk, or act and the movie is a disjointed mess of terribly corny lines and stupid jokes. I rarely write negative reviews but this is the worst movie I have seen since Man's Best Friend and it's definitely one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you rent it, remember that I warned you. The fact that some people actually rated this movie as being good is a sad commentary on their taste and intelligence. I'm not exaggerating.

Rented this one by mistake thinking it was another film with the same title, and realizing that I had rented it some time before.<br /><br />Quick plot line. A couple consisting of an artist and photographer rent a studio apartment in Los Angeles from Joe Estevez, still cursing the fact his brother Martin Sheen could actually ACT! They find a bed in a forgotten room, but the bed is haunted by a nasty looking serial killer from the 1930's and his last victim. Their ghosts inhabit the couple, first enhancing their sex life, but eventually becoming more menacing.<br /><br />What ensues is cheap R-rated sex scenes, cheaper thrills and kind of a waste of time.

The first thing I thought when I saw this films was: It is not really a film, at least it is not what we imagine spontaneously when we hear the word 'film'. it is entirely symbolic, everything in it has a figurative meaning. So if you are not used to express thing in a symbolic way, you will find it strange, if you are not acquainted with philosophy, religion, spiritual life, you will think it's just a fairy-tale... and even a weird one, chaotic. For me 'The legend of Zu' is perfectly transparent. And I do like it. It tells us in images the story about the fight between light and darkness, the fight that is as old as humanity, and every one who is in search of the sens in this life is confronted with it. The film is obviously made by Buddhists. I am not a Buddhist. My religion and the vision of the world and human is different. But as far as we are all humans and have the same human nature we necessarily have common experiences and can understand each other. It is a really beautiful film! And I which we had more films like this - films that have a meaning. There are too many empty stories which are good only to make time pass more quickly.

I watch LOTS of bad films, LOTS!!!!!! It's kind of a hobby, really. Almost every Saturday nite a group of friends and I get together and watch trash from around the globe - ANYTHING. Turkish super hero movies, vampire flicks from Brazil, Italian gorilla transplant movies, Kevin Costner films, ANYTHING (except maybe Raising Helen) but Ihave never seen a WORST film than THEODORE REX. Never. And it's not even entertainingly bad in an Ed Wood kinda way - it just SUCKS. Now this film was famous in Hollywood at the time it was made because Whoopi took off the gloves and made it clear to the press and anyone else who would listen that she HATED THIS PIECE OF CRAP = she tried to get out of her contract, she whined, she moaned but nonetheless they pour her fat butt into this leather skin tight futuristic cop uniform that is ghastly to see, yikes!!!! And you can just see her seething during takes - doing everything but looking off camera for her agent so she can scream at him. The dinosaur has about three facial expressions and the script is so horrible a third grade class could do a better job if promised cookies.

This is a perfect movie to watch with a loved one on a cold and snowy night. If you like a few laughs with your horror then this is the movie for you. The makings of a real cult classic. It has everything you would want to see in a horror movie. A beautiful girl, A hero, The buffoon, A MONSTER TRUCK and of course a family of mutant satanic killers. This one is full of blood,guts and gore. I strongly recommend watching this one in the wee early morning hours, and be careful of who sees you being entertained by the sounds of Monster trucks, Bad {But Funny } One liners and our Hero eating eye ball stew. Not as good as the Evil Dead but a close second. Just remember WARNING..... Do NOT EAT BEFORE VIEWING THIS FILM...

This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW!

<br /><br />I just bought this movie on DVD and watched it for the first time the other night. I've been a fan of Tolkien's work for about 4 years now, ever since I got out of high school. I didn't grow up on this movie...perhaps my mother kept me away from it. It's definitely not for children. Not that it's bad in a graphic sense, but that the themes would go right over most 10 year olds heads. Overall, the animation was excellent considering this was made in 1978/1979. I thought the story followed the book fairly well in a loose sense. But I am bothered that Bashki didn't just add another 40 minutes or so and tack on the Return of the King parts. That would've made it the ultimate movie. I was bothered by it's abrupt end, and then when I heard Return of the King sucked, I was bothered even more. Too bad it wasn't one great animation film. It might have garnered a higher vote from me. I give it a 7. I can only hope Peter Jackson will do the books justice with the new live action LOTR.

This one's a doozy. Dating from 1949, Scene of the Crime often plays more like a Coen Bros. movie set in the 1940's and filmed in black and white, except that the writer's ear for pastiche here isn't quite so well-tuned -- maybe this can be seen instead as the forerunner to Oscar-baiting schlock like Road to Perdition. Frankly, it's a wonder that this film isn't considered a classic by film professors and critics everywhere, considering how much it offers in term of overly articulated mannerist thrills cloaked in false significance ( much like the grandaddy of all such 'fake art' films, Citizen Kane, or anything by Murnau. ) <br /><br />MGM is usually a studio that can do no wrong in my eyes, and I think any story, any atmosphere, even 'gritty realism,' can only benefit from grotesque overaestheticization. You could say I'm a disciple of the Minnelli school. But it takes a certain light touch to write mannered tough-guy dialogue of the Dashiell Hammett stripe, a willingness, perhaps, to let maybe one or two scenes pass without a line like 'Careful, Mr. Wiggly, or you'll have thirteen fish to fry and no little wormies to catch them with.' I made most of that up -- 'Mr. Wiggly,' unfortunately, made the cut -- but believe me, the dialogue is just that loonily inflated and riddled with non sequiturs. Even the lead cop's wife played by Arlene Dahl speaks like she has a moon-shaped scar under one eye and the Christian name Rocco. By the time Van Johnson turns in his badge with the line, 'I'm sick to death of death and homicide,' you'll wonder how the writer's fixation with ornate literary devices -- in this case, zeugma -- could ever have been misconstrued as 'street.' <br /><br />For those who have outgrown The Naked Gun series, this is the funniest cops-n-robbers film going.

This was the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.<br /><br />If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.

What boob at MGM thought it would be a good idea to place the studly Clark Gable in the role of a Salvation Army worker?? Ironically enough, another handsome future star, Cary Grant, also played a Salvation Army guy just two years later in the highly overrated SHE DONE HIM WRONG. I guess in hindsight it's pretty easy to see the folly of these roles, but I still wonder WHO thought that Salvation Army guys are 'HOT' and who could look at these dashing men and see them as realistic representations of the parts they played. A long time ago, I used to work for a sister organization of the Salvation Army (the Volunteers of America) and I NEVER saw any studly guys working there (and that includes me, unfortunately). Maybe I should have gotten a job with the Salvation Army instead!<br /><br />So, for the extremely curious, this is a good film to look out for, but for everyone else, it's poor writing, sloppy dialog and annoying moralizing make for a very slow film.

I'll come clean. The only reason I even found out about this DVD was because Dominic Monaghan is a favorite actor of mine. When I heard the title of the film, I thought it was going to be...different, perhaps in not such a good way.<br /><br />But I was wrong. After reading what few reviews were out there about this short, I was actually excited about seeing it. I sent off for my copy as soon as able and received it a few weeks later. Needless to say, I was not disappointed.<br /><br />The film follows Jack, a insomniac who is often plagued by conditions which causes him to doubt what is reality, and what is all in his head. I won't give away what happens, but I will tell you that the film can sometimes be frightening in it's realism.<br /><br />The directing is fantastic, focusing on what is essential to the story without allowing it to lose any entertainment or thought-provoking moments.<br /><br />All in all, I give this great film 9 out of 10, for going far beyond what I thought any short could achieve.

If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.<br /><br />Wu Du it!<br /><br />9 out of 10<br /><br />

The only reason i am bothering to comment on this movie is to save you all 97 minutes of your life and maybe your money.<br /><br />I bought it ex-rental for £3.00, it looked interesting, so i took a chance.<br /><br />Within minutes of turning it on i realised i'd made a mistake. The entire cast should be stored away until winter and then thrown on the nearest log fire, where they could meet more of their kind.<br /><br />As for the Devin Hamilton (Writer and Director), he should just be shot, sadly this should have been done before he made this rubbish.<br /><br />Avoid this film, If you see it in the shops run away.<br /><br />1/10

Very good western.This was the first time writer Richard Wilson directed a film, also this was a first for Samuel Goldwyn Junior as a producer. It is a pleasure to see a very young and pretty Angie Dickinson as a saloon girl. Robert Mitchum comes to this town dominated by outlaws and is hired as a town tamer, but people are worried that he will go too far, also about the harm that he will do to the town´s businesses. There are some similarities in the story with 'Warlock' which was made in 1959. This film keeps a very fast and exciting pace, it really keeps you on the edge.

Ugh. Yes, it's exactly like the McMartin mess, or the horrific arrests in Wenatchee, Washington. In the movie, the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy, over and over and over, until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. The court investigators and 'therapists' repeat the pattern. The questioning itself is sexually creepy, a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way.<br /><br />The moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse, maybe to justify the film's point of view: that two- to four-year-olds never make 'things like this' up. Well, they will if every adult they know is asking them to. The way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life. <br /><br />(They also add a special arrest incident towards the end to 'prove' their case -- no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. Can't say more here without turning this into a spoiler, but you'll know it when you see it.)<br /><br />Yes, children are abused, sometimes by paid care providers. But to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous, hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people, to watch re-creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused -- I didn't think I'd last until the end. It's just too sad, and made more so by the writing team's seeming endorsement of the abusive, paranoid, obsessional questioning techniques that started -- what can we call it? The bonfire of the sanities? <br /><br />No one I know has ever been accused of child abuse, thank heaven, but my 12-times-over-great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. Mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. Sensational drivel like this -- 'These accusations of Satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country, there must be something there!' 'So tell the jury that!' -- just eggs them on. <br /><br />And whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten, some of them under five, play these roles? It's traumatic to watch them delivering their lines; how much more traumatic was it to act these parts? The moviemakers' commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn't apply to themselves. And what were the child-actors' parents THINKING? 'Melinda' (uncredited, at least in the version on the A&E Network in 2005, but I think it was Cassy Friel) and 'Teddy' (Brian Bonsall) were terrific. Professionals or not, though, they were too young to be exposed to this material, much less to be paid to act it out. Despite ruthlessly exploiting these real-life children, 'Do You Know The Muffin Man' got an Emmy nomination for directing -- which just goes to show how crazed things were, back in 1989.

It's okay ... a few years later Chayefsky's classic 'Network' will be his true cinematic BIG home run ..., but for now, this dark comedy isn't the classic it aspires to be. It's mostly awful, although it has some good scenes: the first murder victim being found, the E.R. clerk responsible for billing patients making a surprise discovery, Drummond's delusional confessional, and the very last scene where Scott's character regains his professional integrity and self-respect. It also has some ludicrous scenes: Scott's character's whiny monologue during his early visit to the hospital psychiatrist, Scott's character's raping Rigg's character, Dysart's horrible mugging in his brief scenes, and the O.R. doctor pouncing on the operating table to resuscitate the wrong patient because 'I already have one malpractice lawsuit'.<br /><br />Chayefsky also tries TOO HARD throwing every conceivable hurdle at this one hospital (i.e.- the murders, the administrative mistakes, the poor people protesting outside, etc). It might have worked better as a look at the industry as a whole. Acting-wise: Scott is passable, Rigg seems miscast, Hughes is inspired, and Dysart mugs through out his brief performance. The rest of the cast is TOO one-dimensional.

I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. A very tense action scene that seemed well done.<br /><br />Some of the transitional scenes were filmed in interesting ways such as time lapse photography, unusual colors, or interesting angles. Also the film is funny is several parts. I also liked how the evil guy was portrayed too. I'd give the film an 8 out of 10.

These type of movies about young teenagers struggling with their own sexuality were something unique and daring and daring a couple of years ago but more and more movies like this got made over the past few years, making it hard for the movies to still stand out really.<br /><br />Also this movie received little publicity, aside from the usual little film festivals that featured this little French movie, as well as the big festivals that are always fond of these type of little movies about everyday subjects that aren't being handled too often in movies. The film premiered at Cannes in 2007 and actually won some awards there as well.<br /><br />The movie doesn't really stand out from others, since it actually features little new once you've already seen some similar movies such as this one but this however really doesn't mean that 'Naissance des pieuvres' is a bad one to watch. The movie is certainly a good watch, that handles its subject well and tells its story steadily and therefore also effectively, in a typical somewhat slow French cinematic pace.<br /><br />It's a coming of age movie, that focus on the life of mainly 3 totally different mid-teenagers. Sexuality is a big theme within the movie, which gets handled delicately and subtle. It makes the movie and its story overall a pretty realistic one, though perhaps a bit predictable, since the movie doesn't quite offer anything original enough within its genre.<br /><br />This type of French movie will probably scare off a lot of people because of the reason that they probably expect it to be very arty, with deep layers and meanings to it. 'Naissance des pieuvres' however is a very accessible movie for everyone and you really don't have to be into Euro-teen movies to appreciate this movie. It's a sweet and somewhat sensual kind of movie, due to its subject and visual approach.<br /><br />The movie is also being made realistic by its actors, who don't had and have a lot of experience within the movie business but are authentic looking and feeling within their roles. The strong individual characters provide the movie with some nice themes and good moments.<br /><br />A good movie on its subject.<br /><br />7/10

When a group of escaped convicts manage to flee to a remote island,they soon find that their new home is inhabited by a strangely menacing doctor(Richard Johnson of 'Zombi 2' fame),a mad scientist(Joseph Cotten),his beautiful daughter(Barbara Bach)and a horde of superstitious natives.The tribesmen say that the doctor has created grotesque half-human,half-fish creatures for evil,secretive purposes.And though at first the prisoners do not believe this,as they disappear,one by one,they begin to change their minds.'Screamers' is a very entertaining mix of 'Mysterious Island' and 'Humanoids from the Deep'.There is plenty of gore with really cool decapitation scene and throat tearing to boost.The acting is so-so,but the film is fast-paced and entertaining.Give it a look.8 out of 10.