Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

Please give this one a miss.<br /><br />Kristy Swanson and the rest of the cast rendered terrible performances. The show is flat, flat, flat.<br /><br />I don't know how Michael Madison could have allowed this one on his plate. He almost seemed to know this wasn't going to work out and his performance was quite lacklustre, so all you Madison fans give this a miss.

It is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.<br /><br />In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.

Good sequel to Murder in a Small Town. In this one Cash and his police Lt. buddy unravel a sticky plot involving a Nazi criminal, a philanthropic witch, and a family of screw-ups and their wierdo helpers. As in the original, the viewer is treated to a nice little mystery with distinctive sights and sounds of pre-war America. Go see it.

Joan Fontaine stars as the villain in this Victorian era film. She convincingly plays the married woman who has a lover on the side and also sets her sights on a wealthy man, Miles Rushworth who is played by Herbert Marshall. Mr. Marshall is quite good as Miles. Miss Fontaine acted her part to perfection--she was at the same time cunning, calculating, innocent looking, frightened and charming. It takes an actress with extraordinary talent to pull that off. Joan Fontaine looked absolutely gorgeous in the elegant costumes by Travis Banton. Also in the film is Joan's mother, Lillian Fontaine as Lady Flora. I highly recommend this film.

This film, for an after school special, isn't that bad, and that's the problem. Nothing happens. You feel as if you're still in class. A guy teaches a bunch of young underdogs how to be good paint ball players. We never get to see these underdogs doing badly as the good player is training them. They all of the sudden turn into good players by meditating. Also there are too many characters and no character development. Too much time is spend on the main character and his sexy sister and not enough on some of the other kids. This could have had a 'Bad News Bears' feel (the original) since there was a girl on an all boys team, but there wasn't any feel to this movie at all. It has no feeling and leaves a dull pain in your bones after watching it, is not fun to bag on, not fun to watch, and is just kind of... there. Plain. Boring. Something you'd watch after school before your pre-evening nap. As dull as the day is long and it's been a long, long day watching this movie.

This is an extremely involving series that is well casted and portraits a sensitive subject with great splendor. We follow Michael Ealy as the undercover FBI agent Darwyn, set to infiltrate a terror cell lead by Farik (Oder Fehr). The series is very well written, and has enough plot twists to keep you sitting at the edge of your seat waiting for whatever happens next.<br /><br />Michael Ealy is by my definition one of the best actors I've seen portraying an undercover agent. Icey cold on the outside, but still a good human being underneath trying his best to keep his head afloat in a highly emotional roller-coaster ride that FBI has had him embark on. Oder Fehr on the other hand comes off a guy that pretty much could fit into any social scenario. Big and strong, but yet able to disappear into the gray mass if so needed. Highly authoritative and extremely cunning. The way the two communicate on screen is nothing short of spectacular.<br /><br />The way the story develops, and the level of detail that the script offers makes the whole story extremely believable, and also very true to life I would imagine. It is of such magnitude that you're left with the feeling of being insecure, not knowing what might happen next in real life. We read about terror every day, and here we are given a good sneak peak into an underworld which most of us know very little about.<br /><br />It's a series that will for sure have you coming back for more, sitting there at the edge of your seat just waiting for next weeks episode to come on. It's a sure winner in my eyes, and I have no problems stating that this series is on my list of all time best.

I have enjoyed Criminal Intent series of Law and Order for a long time. Kathryn Erbe, Det. Alexandra Eames, the female detective is rather hard and seems a bit bitter in the Criminal Intent Series. See her other side in this movie.<br /><br />This movie shows the marvelous soft side of this talented actresses and if you are a Criminal Intent fan this movie is a revelry in her acting and you get a pretty darn good yarn of family hardships in the South.<br /><br />I did not like Albert Finneys role in this movie because he did such a convincing acting job of the older Southern fellow that is hard headed and intolerant and unaccepting of change. He reminds me of so many men from my youth and the portrayal is divine, but you will likely find him hard to like in this movie.<br /><br />Katryn Erbe is easy to like in this movie and why I recommend it as a 10 star for Criminal Intent, law and order fans.

It is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but Hostel is definitely much more worse. This movie is more funny and ridiculous, than scary. I laughed most of the time when watched it. Low quality effects (when you gonna watch it, you'll understand what i'm talking about and HOW LOW quality is that), bad actors (i hear of them for the first time), and it seems like it's shot by an amateur camcorder (so it looks more like a TV show, than a movie). But at least i've had the patience to watch it till the end. Like comedies? Watch it. Wanna horror? Go watch Ju-On: The Grudge or some other good horror movie.<br /><br />If i'm talking about the Legend of Diablo, i don't even know if i can classify it to a Horror genre. Just some low-budget crap.<br /><br />I rate it 3 out of 10

Tiny Toons is the first cartoon I remember watching as a child and I loved every minute of it. When I was four or five my parents purchased the video How I Spent My Vacation. I watched it over and over again until I new every word. Well a few days ago my three year old cousin came over and I had to entertain him. I decided to show him this old relic of my childhood. <br /><br />I new he would laugh but I was surprised how much I laughed. Like every Tiny Toons film and episode the humor is based more on wackiness and slapstick humor and succeeds tremendously. Bugs, Babs, Plucky Duck, Maton Pig, and Fifi all endure amazing adventures from Bugs and Babs white-water rafting with a little help from Superman, Plucky Duck and Maton pig travel to the greatest amusement park only to ride the monorail, and Elmyra goes on an odd quest to find cute kittens in a safari land.<br /><br />Some of the classic humor stands in this Tiny Toon Adventure and is some of the best wacky comedy I've ever seen. My favorite gag had to be the monorail thing when Hamton and Plucky arrive, ride the monorail, and leave )much to Plucky's dismay). No matter what your age you'll laugh yourself to tears while not having to deal with language and nudity.<br /><br />Tiny Toons Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation. Starring the voices of: Charles Adler, Tress MacNeille, Joe Alaskey, and Don Messick.<br /><br />5 out of 5 Stars.

After slightly over 50 years of avid film watching, I've come up with some simple rules for making good movies.<br /><br />1. Introduce your main characters early, certainly within the first half hour 2. Keep your characters to a minimum. If adapting a novel, combine characteristics and actions of minor characters<br /><br /> into one person 3. Make sure your characters actions have credibility; if necessary, create additional scenes to establish motivation 4. Keep the action clear. Violence does not have to be explicit, but it must not be confusing, either 5. Get the best music money can buy. Frequently it matters more than acting, photography, etc. 6. Usually if a movie isn't very good within the first 10 minutes, it's not going to get any better<br /><br />`Cannon for Cordoba' is a textbook example of what happens when these simple rules are not followed. Elmer Bernstein's score is rinkydink, one of the worst I've ever heard in a modestly budgeted movie. This is altogether surprising considering Bernstein's credentials (`Man With the Golden Arm,' `The Magnificent Seven,' `The Great Escape,' `Sons of Katie Elder'). Paul Wendkos' direction is lackluster and confusing. Performances vary from very good (Don Gordon, Peter Duel) to terrible (Raf Vallone, Giovanna Ralli, Gabriele Tinti) with the usually reliable George Peppard falling somewhere in the middle. This should not be surprising, considering the mediocre direction and amateurish script, which breaks rules 1, 2 and 3.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. I give `Cannon for Cordoba' a `3'.

Lupin sets off for Morocco, looking for a legendary treasure. His only clue is an interesting jewel that an old man gave him. It's a nice different location for Lupin, with the desert and that hot exotic feel.<br /><br />One interesting thing about this movie is that Jigen has a much smaller role than usual, generally being in a different place than Lupin. On one hand their classic dynamic together is missed, but it is a change of pace. Plus, this way, Lupin can focus on the ladies...<br /><br />Fujiko rules in this. Throughout the entire feature she is seducing Lupin, and us viewers. Then there's Lara, the damsel of this particular tale, and she's quite likable. This one has more nudity than any other Lupin anime, which is a fun distinction to have.<br /><br />There's a very entertaining effeminate ninja guy who's the best villain in this, and naturally he has some great fighting with Goemon, as well as some fun scenes with Fujiko. Inspector Zenigata of course is also on a warpath here, in fine form.<br /><br />Pretty much, this is a smooth ride with Lupin. The plot is average and there are some slow spots, but all in all this movie is a real pleasure. Enjoy.

Largely forgettable tale in which mercenary Kerman & employer Agren travel into the jungle in search of Agren's missing sister.<br /><br />Despite its connection to the cannibal movie family, this film is more of an extreme version of Rene Cardona's 'Guyana - Crime of the Century'. Lenzi clearly aims to exploit the (at that time) topical Jonestown massacre, by depicting a rogue, self righteous zealot with a penchant for bigamy and just a hint of megalomania (played with ruthless intensity by Ivan Rassimov) leading his motley crew flock into self inflicted oblivion. With sister in toe, Kerman & Agren attempt to stop the rot, but after several failed coups, they end up fleeing into the 'Green Inferno', only to run afoul the locals and their notorious appetites.<br /><br />One in a string of excessive gore fests that emerged in the late seventies/early eighties, where every new addition seemed to engage in a one-upmanship contest with its predecessor, by attempting to contrive the most gory and graphic display ever brought to motion pictures. This inferior instalment employs all the motifs and gimmicks of the others, but with much less success.<br /><br />Was it the so called 'Amazonian natives' who looked like they were Bollywood rejects (this film was made on location in Sri Lanka), or the inept 'decapitation' and 'castration' scenes that seriously diminished the authenticity that was apparent in 'Cannibal Holocaust'? You can decide. Without spoiling the conclusion, it appeared as though Lenzi put more emphasis in his shock and awe climax than in the basic requirement for a cohesive ending, where all loose ends are resolved. Most unsatisfying.<br /><br />As with the others, where the extent of the graphic depictions of violence toward humans is limited (thankfully), the filmmakers have spared no extreme in inflicting the worst possible cruelty on hapless animals in their pursuit of the most sadistic shocks. Unfortunately, the only thing shocking about this film is that it rates a mention among others of the ilk, that deal with the subject matter more convincingly.<br /><br />If there are any redeemable features at all, Kerman is an affable if somewhat one-dimensional leading man, and his bevy of scantily clad co-stars (Agren, Lai and Senatore) provide some visual respite from the relentless slayings.

Family Guy is easily one of the worst shows I've ever forced myself to watch (Not at THE bottom, though - I've seen The Jersey Shore). A popular hit with high school and college kids who mistake immaturity for edginess, this show is unoriginal and stale.<br /><br />As this has been dubbed a comedy show, let's take a look at its 'humor.' 1. Random flashbacks/cuts to celebrities or movies or politics or anything that can be cut to for a knee-jerk laugh. It got old after the 5 or so repetitions per episode. Simple solution: Every time you hear 'This is worse than/like the time...', plug your ears.<br /><br />2. Inappropriateness for its own sake. This show is notorious for inserting inappropriate gags that have little to do with the overall plot. Solution: Watch South Park. They did it right.<br /><br />The bottom line is that Family Guy is not worth your time, and doesn't hold a candle to The Simpsons.

Having watched the first scene, I realized the acting was so bad that it couldn't possibly pick up later. Superficial and artificial, with frequent attempts to look professional through references to technology the way a five year-old tries to make it sound as if he knows what he's talking about. <br /><br />The second-to-second storyline is completely unrealistic and just about every single decision the screenwriter did, was the kind you expect from a below-average grade school student. The overall storyline was as unoriginal and predictable as a pack of sausages. The few attempts to make the dialogs sound intelligent, was limited to neurotic, apologetic behavior. A ten year-old might like it. But it would take a five year-old to accept the lack of realism; How does advanced cell function allow someone to bypass a code lock by touching it as if with a magic wand, pick out one out of 100s of voices through a ventilation system (thereby ripping off Superman), and repair a home computer by just sensing whats wrong instead of looking for faults? Actually, that scene is a neat example: The fault was that one of the cooling pipes (aluminum ribbons) on the CPU was broken, the way it would look if a exhaust pipe on a V8 engine is ripped off by an explosion. This is something that can't happen, and if it did, it wouldn't prevent the computer from working. There is no electrical current passing through this ribbon, but when he (without doing it himself, his arms worked by autopilot because the cells in his body was super efficient) put a push-pin into the rip, a desktop with icons appeared on the screen immediately without booting.<br /><br />And so it goes all the way. Like when he escaped an interrogation room in the NSA headquarters by lighting a lighter below a fire sensor, resulting in open doors throughout the building. Naturally, NSA didn't predict this sharp witted approach to escaping, nor did they put any guards outside his room (or anywhere else) to guard a living, walking breakthrough in military nanotechnology. So he walked out and got a cab. Examples like this one are not only numerous, there is in fact just about no single scene that makes sense. <br /><br />Also, the so-called great effects were terrible. He threw a basketball back to a kid in the park, and the kid was thrown back horizontally 20 feet into a tree. No acceleration or deceleration, but constant speed and height, like a motorized trolley. I'm sure if I paused and looked for the cables that kept the posture of this kid the way only cables can, they probably didn't know how to or bother to erase them completely. If someone is thrown that far into a tree, they would at least say ouch (or rather be hospitalized with broken bones), but the kid was just just confused and amazed.<br /><br />Moronic. That's the word for every creative decision made throughout the entire production. I'm going to put the director's name on my own personal blacklist, someone as poorly skilled as him cannot improve. I feel like demanding compensation for having wasted 45 minutes of my life for watching it, and the time it took to write this. Although it felt therapeutic, it was traumatic to realize how little it takes to get a pilot approved. The only excuse a slightly intelligent person could have to watch this voluntarily, would be imprisonment or lobotomy.

This is one of the very, very few films that are so overwhelming that you are very unlikely to watch it more than once or twice in your lifetime (other examples are Claude Lanzmann's documentary Shoah and Come and See by the director's husband Elem Klimov - which covers much the same unbearable territory but in a very different way).<br /><br />I suppose this is just as well given the difficulty of ever seeing a print.<br /><br />Apparently it's extraordinarily overt Christian symbolism and admission that there were active Russian collaborators, ensured that it was hardly ever seen in the USSR - and of course post-soviet Russia has very little interest in films of that era.<br /><br />The one time I saw it in London was in a festival of Russian movies shown during the Glasnost era (i.e. probably c.1988) - however it apparently has been shown several times in the UK more recently so at least one subtitled print must exist here.<br /><br />As far as I know it has never been released in the west on DVD or video so if you haven't seen it, your best chance is probably to join a film society and endlessly nag them to find a print and screen it.

never before have i seen such a tale of such talentless hangers on been so ungrateful that their golden goose has failed to lay. these spunk monkeys are parasites and bad examples of friends. i felt sorry for troy as he tried to hook up all of his friends with Hollywood gigs, but as soon as things turned sour, they all left troy hanging. overnight was a contrived effort of self indulgent retribution on a man who was going up against the forces of Hollywood to retain story integrity. The simple premise of Overnight is to try an communicate the message, 'look at this guy, he blew it all', when in fact he has a strong underground following, dealt with harsh blows from friends and executives all in the name of getting a project done in the way he envisioned it. Quite frankly the only productive par that any of these guys played in the overall execution of the Boondock Saints shoot culminated as nothing more than extra bodies in the first bar room scene, after that all they did was whine why they weren't a bigger deal based on the clambering of their rancid efforts on top of troys shoulders. (the 2nd half of this was written by Adam j farina)

What an appalling piece of rubbish!!! Who ARE all these people who blubber on about how good this is? Yes, it's 'arty'; and yes, it's 'foreign', but .... that's not enough. The plot is boring and disjointed, like a reality show but not so slickly made.<br /><br />The people are intrinsically uninteresting; but as characters they don't have enough depth to feel empathy for them. If they are based on real people then I feel very, very sorry for them.<br /><br />The violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. It's like the producer has visions of being Quenton Tarantino. Not that I think very much of him, either.<br /><br />And oh yes: if I had neighbours like these, I'd move!

This is one of the best horror / suspense films that Hollywood has made in years or maybe even decades.Even though in my opinion this movie was predictable in parts, it has everything that a good film in this genre should had CHILL, THRILLS, AND yes a lot of GORE!! HOUSE OF WAX SURE DELIVERS!!! In parts it was sort of far-fetched,the acting was not that great,but my overhaul rating for HOUSE OF WAX is an eight out of ten......if you enjoy being at the edge of your seats, this is just the right movie for you,I have to admit,it was sort of neat seeing the whole town made out of wax...... I myself enjoy these museums, but after seeing this film I will now look at them in a whole new different way!

Chris Penn is hilarious as the all-time stoner brother of Jeff spicoli. This movie is great because it was a lot more real and funnier than fast times at ridgemont high. Casting was perfect and one of my favorite soundtracks of almost all Eddie van halen which went on to become songs on ou812 and unlawful carnal knowledge. This movie is one of the great stoner film heroes with cheech and chong. Fast times was more depressing than funny. Abortions, friends cheating on friends, jerking off in bathrooms, bad jobs, and failing school. Someone must hate the eighties to like ridgemont more than the wild life. The film even had great cameos like the maker of city limits Michelle schocked in the liquor store or Ben Stein in his first role in the sunny's surplus store.

Prue and Piper bring Dr. Griffiths to their home to save him from the Sauce's assassin Shax. While Phoebe looks in the Book of Shadow how to vanquish the demon, Prue and Piper fight and chase Shax on the streets to destroy him. However, they are filmed and exposed live in the television news as witches. They become national sensation with a crowd in front of their house. Phoebe trusts on Cole and goes to the underworld with Leo to ask him to summon Tempus and revert time while a fanatic woman shots Piper, who dies. The source proposes Phoebe to stay with him and in return he would save her sister. Phoebe accepts the deal, and the time is reverted to the moment Shax is attacking Prue, Piper and Dr. Griffits.<br /><br />'All Hell Breaks Loose' is a good but incoherent episode. With Piper dead and The Power of Three destroyed, why should The Source revert time to save her? But this dramatic show is certainly one of the best of the Third Season and let the viewers anxiously waiting for the next episode. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Voltando no Tempo' ('Back in Time')

I won't reiterate what so many others have said about this film; I'll try to add a few new points. The Coolio-as-vampire bit is a nod to fans who are familiar with his turn on the Blondie song 'No Exit' in which he assumes the role of a rapping vampire (it actually works as a musical concept and is in fact a great song). Casper Van Dien is no worse than Brad Pitt and is actually more handsome. And really what does anyone go to a Brad Pitt movie for other than eye candy? Same here, although this is poorly filmed (check out 'Starship Troopers' instead). And of course Udo Kier, after having played Dracula in the Morrissey/Warhol film, has little more than a cameo. Enjoy it if you can.

'Stick Around' is one of the brief series of films that paired Bobby Ray with Oliver 'Babe' Hardy before Hardy's immortal teaming with Stan Laurel. Several critics have suggested that Ray and Hardy -- the gormless little man and the overbearing big man -- were a prototype for Laurel and Hardy, but that simply isn't true. Ray and Hardy play off each other well, but really aren't a team; in each of these films, Ray has more footage and is clearly meant to be the hero, while Hardy bullies him in a manner very much unlike his later 'Ollie' character's treatment of 'Stanley'. It's very clear that the relationship between little Bobby and big Babe was inspired by earlier Chaplin films, in which the Little Tramp was bullied by huge Mack Swain or burly Eric Campbell.<br /><br />However, in 'Stick Around', Hardy sports a bowler hat that's identical to his later 'Ollie' titfer (although with a fuller moustache), and he and Bobby -- after spending most of this movie as adversaries -- end up as drunken comrades.<br /><br />Bobby is a paperhanger for the firm of Matz and Blatz, with Hardy as his boss. When the tardy Bobby tries to pretend he showed up promptly, there's some clever physical business between the two men that reminds me of a routine performed by Roscoe Arbuckle and Buster Keaton in 'The Garage'. A bit later, Bobby Ray -- whose brief acting career never firmly developed a screen persona -- performs an 'impossible' gag that would have been inappropriate for Stan Laurel, when he pulls a long stepladder out of a much smaller toolkit.<br /><br />The paperhangers go to work in a sanitarium, and there are the usual unrealistic depictions of mental illness: one resident insists on sitting on a piece of toast because he thinks he's a poached egg! There are also some howlingly racist (and tastelessly unfunny) gags involving a black man who obligingly lets the inmates crack open walnuts on top of his head. When he sees a *picture* of a lion -- not even a photograph, mind you -- he goes all cowardly as if it were an actual wild animal.<br /><br />'Stick Around' is fairly dire. Most of the pantomime and acting is much broader than it needs to be for a slapstick comedy; even Hardy, already a very subtle actor by 1925, pongs badly with his over-acting here. There are several bad examples of shot-matching. I was impressed with one unusual camera set-up, when a fat pedestrian's face is dirtied and we see a close-up of his reflection in a hand mirror, rather than his actual face.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. During their brief pairing, Hardy typically played Ray's boss or adversary or both; here, for once, they end up as pals. It's a nice ending, but it doesn't make up for what's really a poor film. My rating for this one is only 4 out of 10.

I watched Love Life on holiday, when it was filmed at a film festival in Florida. It was a lovely surprise to find a British film that wasn't derivative or exploitive. A beautiful romantic comedy for a change that will charm the pants of audiences prepared to sit back and enjoy the gentle pace of the film. The transitions between scenes I found a bit distracting, but as whole I think Love Life is a winner, a ruby in the dust. One for all the family. A pleasant change to see a British film for teen audiences that isn't littered with four letter words. Try and see it.

I liked the movie, first of all because it told an interesting story, but the story as told in the movie felt like it was condensed from a much-longer story. Since the book is over 400 pages, that makes sense. It spans a time period from the 1920s to the 1970s, in a fictional South American country, also a lot to fit into the time available. I think it would have been much better as a six-hour mini-series than it turned out as a 140-minute movie.<br /><br />Even though it's rushed, the story doesn't skip so much that it gets confusing. What is told is told fairly well. One fault is that Clara's supernatural powers appear inconsistently; either they should have appeared more evenly through the course of the movie, or they should have been left out. Two more faults (which could be spoilers): Esteban's eventual return to goodness happens somewhat too suddenly, and Ferula's curse seems to wear off, even though the tone of the story suggests that it should endure forever.<br /><br />The acting is excellent. Glenn Close, as the tormented spinster Ferula, is outstanding. Jeremy Irons, as the brutal self-made rich man, is also excellent. Meryl Streep, as the main character Clara, is great, although she's often even better than she was in this movie. There were many well-performed smaller roles too. The biggest fault is that the movie seemed to lack a dialect coach; each actor seemed to speak in a different sort of accent.

I just saw 'Checking Out' at the Philadelphia Film Festival. What a terrific combination of a heartwarming storyline and a great cast. Director Jeff Hare has done an outstanding job of inviting the audience into the disjointed, yet hilarious world of Morris Applebaum and family. The family life is presented in such a way that we enjoy the crazy antics yet feel the real pain and concern they have for one another.<br /><br />Typically I am not a Peter Falk fan, but he IS Morris Applebaum and plays the role with great humor and humanity.<br /><br />I hope that everyone gets to see this wonderful movie and enjoy it as I did.<br /><br />Hats off to the Director, Cast, and Crew for a job well done!

As the front cover says 'The hamlet of our time, for our time'.<br /><br />I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.<br /><br />This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.<br /><br />just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me.

I liked all the Lilo and Stitch movies. The TV series weren't that great, but I put my opinions of the series aside when I watched this movie. And I must say... It was bad.<br /><br />One thing I found disappointing was the animation. Yes, you heard it. The animation. I found its quality greatly degraded since the first movie. Its quality was only as high as the TV series', something which I did not expect at all. If you're looking for eye candy, don't expect anything much here. Also, the animation failed to portray any serious moods. Even in the supposed sad scenes, I didn't feel anything for the character, another downgrade from the first movie.<br /><br />The next, was the absolutely horrible voice acting. I found it very, very unconvincing, and wondered why, Disney, with all its riches and glory, couldn't afford voice actors with real talent. The voice actors' skill were just as annoying as the one in the series. I tolerated the one in the series because, hey, who wouldn't be tired out when made to voice act for so many episodes? Heck, I don't even know how many episodes there are (Theoretically, there are 624, but I just can't believe that). However, I thought that the voice acting would improve in the movie, and I was put down in the face by the truth, that what they could do in the series was already their best.<br /><br />Next, was the horrible script. It was cheesy beyond redemption, and the writers just try too hard. They try to put some jokes in, but I just found them annoying. Maybe it wasn't the voice acting, but the cheesy dialogues that ruined the sound section. (On the upside, the soundtrack wasn't too bad, and matched the mood quite well.) <br /><br />Fourthly was the problem with the storyline. I predicted everything, and the storyline was what made the characters so unoriginal and unlikeable all of a sudden. You have the aliens get new positions and responsibilities inouter space. After the initial hype, they realize that they actually didn't like it and miss their old life. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the evil villain gets broken out of jail after a very 'action packed' action scene and breaks in to Jumbaa's lab to steal his experiment. The experiment was then cloned into 100 others and the hamster wants to conquer Earth. When the main characters find out, they try to stop the evil hamster but gets confronted in some cheesy final showdown against the experiment and owns him in an extremely lame excuse for trying to make the series to look cool. The characters then give up their new privileges and return to Earth to resume their life. Seriously, how many other movies has used that ending already? The that storyline was extremely short and formulaic, so don't expect too much from it.<br /><br />So Disney has failed in sound, graphics and storyline. The only charm of the series was the original characters, and how they managed to retain the 'feel' of the characters, but even that wasn't able to save the movie. I tried to like it, I really did, but I give it a rating of 4/10. Another Disney failure.

If I'd only seen the poster for Nurse Betty, I probably wouldn't have touched it with a ten-foot pole. But after I heard some positive buzz, and knowing it made some noise at Cannes, I decided to give it a try. What I got is a truly enjoyable movie, based on a very entertaining plot. Rene Zelleweger is impressive in her role as ‘nurse' Betty, a woman who is sent into a delusional psychotic episode following a traumatic experience. I also liked Morgan Freeman (no surprise) and was pleasantly surprised by foul-mouthed comedian Chris Rock. <br /><br />The film bounces continuously between comedy, drama, romance, and thriller. Yet despite this apparent identity crisis, it holds up quite well. I found my eyes glued to the screen from beginning to end always waiting for the next twist in the story. The entire cast is strong, if not spectacular. <br /><br />My only real complaint is that director Neil Labute (who made a splash a few years ago with the very impressive and dark ‘In the Company of Men') relied much too heavily on many cliched Hollywood conventions. The mood-creating musical effects he crammed down our throats during each sentimental scene were unbearable! And he did the standard old 'let's take some of the minor characters and pair them up at the end in an illogical and unnecessary romance' trick, just to make absolutely certain everyone goes home with a smile on their face. Why must directors and writers treat their audiences like idiots??<br /><br />But the movie is still much too enjoyable to be dragged down very far by these annoying irritations. In a very subpar year for movies, 'Nurse Betty' ranks as one of the more pleasant surprises of 2000. 8 out of 10.

When I really began to be interested in movies, at the age of eleven, I had a big list of 'must see' films and I would go to Blockbuster and rent two or three per weekend; some of them were not for all audiences and my mother would go nuts. I remember one of the films on that list was 'A Chorus Line' and could never get it; so now to see it is a dream come true.<br /><br />Of course, I lost the list and I would do anything to get it back because I think there were some really interesting things to watch there. I mean, take 'A Chorus Line', a stage play turned into film. I know it's something we see a lot nowadays, but back then it was a little different, apparently; and this film has something special.<br /><br />Most of the musicals made movies today, take the chance the camera gives them for free, to create different sceneries and take the characters to different places; 'A Chorus Line' was born on a theater stage as a play and it dies in the same place as a movie. Following a big audition held by recognized choreographer Zach (Michael Douglas), Richard Atenborough directs a big number of dancers as they try to get the job.<br /><br />Everything happens on the same day: the tension of not knowing, the stress of having to learn the numbers, the silent competition between the dancers…And it all occurs on the stage, where Douglas puts each dancer on the spotlight and makes them talk about their personal life and their most horrible experiences. There are hundreds of dancers and they are all fantastic, but they list shortens as the hours go by.<br /><br />Like a movie I saw recently, 'A Prairie Home Companion', the broadcast of a radio show, Atenborough here deals with the problem of continuity. On or behind the stage, things are going on, and time doesn't seem to stop. Again, I don't if Atenborough cut a lot to shoot this, but it sure doesn't look like it; and anyway it's a great directing and editing (John Bloom) work. But in that little stage, what you wonder is what to do with the camera…With only one setting, Ronnie Taylor's cinematography finds the way, making close-ups to certain characters, zooming in and out, showing the stage from different perspective and also giving us a beautiful view of New York.<br /><br />In one crucial moment, Douglas tells the ones that are left: 'Before we start eliminating: you're all terrific and I'd like to hire you all; but I can't'. This made me think about reality shows today, where the only thing that counts is the singing or dancing talent and where the jury always says that exact words to the contestants before some of them are leaving (even when they are not good). It's hard, you must imagine; at least here, where all of them really are terrific.<br /><br />To tell some of the stories, the characters use songs and, in one second, the stage takes a new life and it literally is 'a dream come true'. The music by Marvin Hamlisch and the lyrics by Edward Kleban make the theater to film transition without flaws, showing these dancers' feelings and letting them do those wonderful choreographies by Michael Bennett. The book in the theater also becomes a flawless and very short screenplay by Arnold Schulman; which is very touching at times. So if it's not with a song it will be with a word; but in 'A Chorus Line', it's impossible not to be moved.<br /><br />During one of the rehearsal breaks in the audition, Cassie, a special dancer played by Alyson Reed, takes the stage to convince Douglas character that she can do it. The words 'let me dance for you' never sounded more honest and more beautifully put in music and lyrics.

One of the worst romantic comedies (nay, worst movies) I've ever seen. Boy (who works as a phone psychic!) must pretend to be gay to move into apartment with woman of his dreams. Hilarity does not ensue. Boredom, light gay-bashing, and horrible dialogue do. If you read Brad Meltzer and like his crappy dialogue, you'll like this movie.<br /><br />Be smart. Avoid this. if you see it, destroy the copy.

Do not rent this movie. I ended up buying the 'previously viewed' tape of this for $4.00. That was close to the price of a rental, so thought, I might as well buy it. I'm tossing it out after I finish this review. The movie which stars Lowe, is a music video with few lines of dialogue, slow moving shots and poorly done editing. I thought I'd be seeing a mindless action flick, which is what I wanted to see, I didn't even get that. This movie is an exercise in slow moving shots, no script, close-ups, terrible edited, and a poorly developed plot. I can't believe that is actually ends with a scene in which they think the audience cares about the characters. By the end of the movie, we still don't even really know who they are. Believe the hype, stay away.

I have had the opportunity to catch this independent film and was impressed with it, despite the lack of excitement in the plot. The acting was very good by everyone involved. Amy Madigan played the part of a guilt ridden mother who is tired, yet well intentioned and determined to make up for her younger daughter's condition. Yet, in the process, she has neglected her older sister, who is more interested in playing with her savant-syndrome sibling and living in a world of escapism.<br /><br />The men in the movie are very powerful in their secondary roles. Christopher Lloyd, in a very understated role, shows us why he has such versatility. He plays a teacher who is dedicated to his profession and literature research, yet starved for a meaningful relationship. He and Madigan connect very well in their scenes together, yet both know nothing more can come from their friendship. Their wordless goodbye is nothing short of brilliant, an acting lesson for aspiring performers.<br /><br />And in a small role, Fred Savage is fun to watch.<br /><br />You can tell why this movie was based on a play, it's probably very good on stage. On screen, it's not particularly exciting, but it's nonetheless very thoughtful and powerful in its subtleties.

Kurt Russell is so believable and the action so non-stop that it takes thinking about it afterward to realize that there were honest-to-goodness important themes [overcoming fear of The Stranger, learning to rise above early conditioning, the strength that love and friendship can bring, etc.] in the storyline. This is so very rare for a 'guy's action flick' that even I [who thinks most A/A is violent pap] liked the film and have recommended it to every guy I know.....it's a shame this one was overlooked because by rights it should have been one of the biggest action-adventure box office hits -- it has something for everyone without straining credulity or losing the nearly non-stop action moments. I'm afraid the answer to it not becoming a hit lies in the fact that adults did not go to see it. Anyone under 20 probably has not only seen more violent action in their video games but probably would either not catch the multi-layered, multi-themed beauty or not care about it. This film could convert anyone who avoids A/A as mindless violence. If a guy takes his lady [or rents it or sees it in a cable listing] to see this film he'll be much more likely to get her to go with him to other action flicks.

Not all films made in 1931 are this creaky, and the fact that this was 'Best Picture' must have given even greater impetus to the development of television.<br /><br />Typical of all Ferber novels, it isn't possible to bring the entire story to the screen, to say nothing of developing character. Dix -- so stolid in the first third of the movie -- does an about face, but no one knows why and it makes no sense. And what is there about Dunne that makes makes her so stoical? Edna May Oliver's scenes are priceless, as usual.<br /><br />This film has a role to play in the history of cinema, but it is long and boring.

A single mom,her son and daughter and their hippie chick friend are camping in the woods.A muscle bound,machete wielding maniac in a yellow ski mask appears.He starts terrorizing and sexually violating the family before murdering them with a machete.'Wet Wilderness' is loaded with ugly hardcore sex,forced incest and blatant racism.It's as politically incorrect as XXX roughies get.The score is stolen from seminal Hitchcock's horror classic 'Psycho' and also 'Jaws'.The acting is hilariously awful,the editing is bad and there are some huge lapses in logic.The repetitive nature of the sex scenes grinds the movie after while so the brief running time is a blessing.The scenes of violence are quite nasty for example the hippie girl is stabbed with the machete in her groin and one can see blood on her crotch.3 out of 10 and that's being generous.

This is a great movie to watch with a good friend, boy/girl friend or family. Basically one of those feel good movies you want to share with your loved ones....without all the girlie crap you find in a lot of American feel good movies. This movie is light hearted but makes you think, and will make you laugh. <br /><br />Just a really simple but universal plot. Would think most people could relate in some way to this movie. The characters in the movie are amazing and the actors do a great job in sucking you into the movie. And the movie is topped off all along the way with hilarious true to life Jewish humor. I watched the movie for the first time last night, and now I want to own it. :)

Seems that the cast should ensure at least an average movie. And so I sat down for 102 minutes of unbelief. Beside Ed Harris no-one seems to own the skills of acting. Even Sean Connery, who I normally worship, must have had an off-day during the entire filming of Just Case. Not once in during the whole movie one actor could convince me.<br /><br />This made this movie look cheap and unreal.<br /><br />The story makes up a little. It is thrilling, and the plot is unexpected.<br /><br />Conclusion only watch this movie if you really have nothing more useful to do.

Of course, the story line for this movie isn't the best, but the dances are wonderful. This story line is different from other Astaire-Rogers movies in that neither one is 'chasing' the other. The dancing of Fred and Ginger is what makes this movie.

Jake Speed is a film that lacks one thing – a charismatic lead. Unfortunately that's something that really taints the entire movie and it's a shame because at heart it is an enjoyable action movie with a witty enough script and an interesting, if derivative, premise. Although it's genesis probably can be traced back to the success of the Indiana Jones trilogy – the film actually plays a little more like 'Romancing the Stone' albeit in reverse. It's not an author of romantic adventure fiction being led on an adventure by a character very much like one of her creations it is an adventure fiction character (who happens to chronicle his own adventures) leading an ordinary woman on one of his adventures.<br /><br />When a young woman goes missing in Paris, her sister Margaret (played by the appealing Karin Kopins) gets embroiled with pulp hero Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford) and his sidekick Dennis (Dennis Christopher) who both turn out to be real and very flawed individuals in an adventure that takes them into the heart of a civil war torn African state and ultimately into the clutches of two brothers the deliciously evil Sid (John Hurt) and his ridiculously camp sibling Maurice (Roy London). That's the plot – it's not labyrinthine and it's not complicated but the story that it tells doesn't require great depth.<br /><br />The action sequences are appealing to begin with and it's certainly true that the heroic trio are put through their paces (whether caught in battles between government and rebel forces or being dropped into a pit full of lions) and there are certainly some quite funny lines. However the film does seem to struggle to find an ending and unfortunately the action sequences that are quite appealing to begin with go nowhere and ultimately become a bit bland and irksome. This, however, may not have been such an issue if it was possible to like Jake Speed but due to Wayne Crawford's performance it becomes harder to really care what happens. Now I don't know if he was stretching himself a little thin as he was also the producer and writer of the movie or whether he's simply not a good actor (as I haven't seen him in much else) but he never really convinces as a roguish mixture of Doc Savage, Indiana Jones and Jack Colton.<br /><br />This is a shame because most of the other characters play their roles well – Karen Kopins is funny and convincing and her character shares some nice banter with Jake (unfortunately it never convinces). Dennis Christopher is perfect as the archetypal sidekick and John Hurt plays the part with camp relish – almost as if he were in a sixties episode of Batman. He strides about his few scenes growling in a ridiculous cockney accent putting in a performance that almost belongs in another film. Sid is no Moriarty (he is presented as Jake's nemesis from a number of his previous adventures / books) but he is always fun to watch.<br /><br />Jake Speed tries to channel the same fun B movie spirit as 'Night of the Comet' (a film produced by Crawford a few years beforehand) and almost succeeds but misses – which is a shame because Jake would have been good to watch in a few more adventures and may have been served better by a television series.<br /><br />I would recommend this out of curiosity appeal but ultimately it leaves a bitter taste because most of the elements were there to make something genuinely good.

I thought this movie was great, if you didn't take it too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy Hilary Swank in all her greatness and laugh when the monks go to Boston, MA. I also think this movie has a great message about self control and inner strength. Plus Mr. Myagi was so sweet, I wish he'd teach me karate!

Our imp of the perverse did good his first time out, thats for sure. The music is the best you may ever hear by any human, but you already know that, unless you have no taste or have a brain that is too small to understand greatness. A poor script that doesn't flesh out much of a story, but at least it has its moments. the breathtaking concert stuff is worth seeing it. He deserved an Oscar for this s**t, even though he was at times an ego driven twit, with his towering bodyguard Chick Huntsbery always in front. A movie that made non-fans fans, Take it or leave it. Prince does need to stay clear of acting in the future though. He takes himself way to serious. He is a genius musician, but pleaseee..Just enjoy the ride, my purple maestro..Peace.

I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is 'the mundane life is worth living', well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted.

Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).<br /><br />That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) 'it sucks' is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.<br /><br />The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).<br /><br />Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what?

OK, so i have recently been collecting a lot of vipco and hardgore titles on DVD and i have to say that this one is one of the most disappointing ones. A more recent film compared to other titles in the Hardgore catalogue this was a straight to DVD release. i've always been interested in the myth of el chokeberry ever since i saw a documentary on it as a teenager. however this film is a terrible let down shot on tacky dv the storyline and acting are terrible, it took me three goes to watch this film all the way through. While cheap 80's and 90's horror films are good because of their cheap budgets and comedy this film is not.<br /><br />check out some other titles in the hardgore series first, boneyard for example is older but much much better.

Writer/Director/Co-Star Adam Jones is headed for great things. That is the thought I had after seeing his feature film 'Cross Eyed'. Rarely does an independent film leave me feeling as good as his did. Cleverly written and masterfully directed, 'Cross Eyed' keeps you involved from beginning to end. Adam Jones may not be a well known name yet, but he will be. If this movie had one or two 'Named Actors' it would be a Box Office sensation. I think it still has a chance to get seen by a main stream audience if just one film distributor takes the time to work this movie. Regardless of where it ends up, if you get a chance to see it you won't be disappointed.

When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.<br /><br />I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time – Avoid at all costs.

This film was amazing, it was extremely funny and moving. Damien O'Donnell and Jeffrey Caine have put together a great movie which will appeal to all ages. James McAvoy and Steven Robertson made this film brilliant. Their acting was excellent, there was this real lifelike feeling between them, that made you really believe they were the characters they were acting out. Romola Garai is amazingly gorgeous and brilliant in her role. The story of these two physically challenged people and their carer is well put over, and you really start to grow to know and feel for the characters as the movie goes on, it was especially upsetting at the end. I would recommend this movie to anyone that loves a truly heart felt movie, warning to the more sensitive viewer make sure you have tissues you will need them.<br /><br />Again amazing film!!

The opening credits make for a brilliant, atmospheric piece of escapist entertainment that's full of little nods to the comic strip. All the good guys are good, all the bad guys are bad, and the film is jam-packed with familiar character actors covered in gruesom make-up to hi-lite their characteristics.<br /><br />Warren Beatty, as Dick Tracy, is the ultimate tough guy straight man, incorruptable, calm usually, always a better fighter than the other guy, and rarely one to push the limit on legality. Al Pacino, as 'Big Boy' Caprice steals every scene he's in as a hunch-backed gangster in some unnamed metropolis of 1930s gangsters. Maddonna plays the kind of person she'd probably play best, Breathless Mahoney, a nightclub singer and femme fatale with her own little agenda going. Gleanne Headly is Tracy's tough-talking, fiercely independent long-time girlfrined. And then there's The Kid, a funny little street urchin Tracy takes in, who models himself after his surrogate father, and saves Tracy when the detective has accepted his fate of being blown up.<br /><br />The supporting players are a Who's Who of character actors. Charles Durning is the chief of police. Dick Van Dyke is the District Attorney, who's bribed by Big Boy's goons to keep him on the streets. Dustin Hoffman has a humorous turn as Mumbles, the snitch whose dialect is so indecipherable the cops can't make head nor tail of what he has to say. R.G. Armstrong is Pruneface, one of the rival gangsters Big Boy forms a special allegiance to in order to create a network of crime spreading throughout the whole city. Mandy Patinkin is 88 Keys, the piano player for Breathless's show. Paul Sorvino plays Lips Manlis, Breathless's former benefactor until Big Boy gives him 'the Bath.' James Caan wears relatively little make-up in his performance as the only gangster who won't go along with Big Boy's grand plan. William Forsythe and Ed O'Ross are Big Boy's enforcers, Flattop and Itchy.<br /><br />This movie retains all of the corn of the comic strip, plus it is full of vibrant colors. Almost all the suits are elaborate in blues and greens and yellows and reds. All the colors of the rainbow are found in this movie--and then some! The matte paintings that are used truly realize this world as two-dimensional, only acted in three-dimensional sets. The humor is plentiful. Al Pacino fills the shoes of his character like no other character he's played before or since. Big Boy is kind of crazy, and kind of self-pitying. He's an eccentric little man who takes pride in quoting our Founding Fathers and likening himself to great political leaders. The man with the plan, always looking for the smartest way to do business.

First of all, I personally adore Demons and Demons 2, I saw them although it was hard to find good horrors without good official movie distributing here in Russia when I was a kid, and that is an unchangeable part of my boyhood. Then I heard nothing about Mr Bava. Then I saw his Ghost Son. Well, it is certainly not a good coming back! Why was the leading character, whom we never really knew to at least like him, in accident in the middle of an empty road? Why do African servants say so dumb and stupid things about human soul? Why is the plot so primitive? Haven't we seen enough ghosts for 100 years of movie production? It is clear that Lamberto Bava has nothing to show us so far. It is a shame.

North Africa in the 1930's. To a small Arab town on the edge of the Sahara comes a beautiful woman looking for meaning to her life & a handsome Trappist monk fleeing from his crisis of faith. They will meet and passions will be stirred, but not even the Sand Diviner knows if they will find happiness or sorrow, here, in THE GARDEN OF ALLAH.<br /><br />The plot is pure hokum, but the film is still great fun & beautiful to look at. Marlene Dietrich & Charles Boyer are a superb screen couple. She is, to put it simply, gorgeous, and Boyer gives a most effective, understated performance, letting his sensitive face do much of his acting for him. <br /><br />The supporting cast is excellent: Basil Rathbone, in a sympathetic role as a Count who loves the desert; Joseph Schildkraut as a friendly, talkative guide (all the 'Arabic' he & others speak in the film is pure gibberish); Lucile Watson as a gentle Mother Superior; Alan Marshal as an honorable young French officer; Tilly Losch as a dangerous dancer; Henry Brandon as a comic porter; John Carradine as the mysterious Sand Diviner; and magnificent Sir C. Aubrey Smith as a wise old priest.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize Helen Jerome Eddy as a nun; Marcia Mae Jones & Bonita Granville (peeking over the nun's shoulder) as convent girls; gaunt Nigel De Brulier as a monastery lector; and Ferdinand Gottschalk as a hotel clerk, all uncredited.<br /><br />Color films of the 1930's are both rare & lovely to look at, and this movie is no exception - the cinematography is as colorful as the desert itself. THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was the first Technicolor film to be shot on location. Yuma, Arizona gave the film makers all the sand dunes they could desire, but contaminated drinking water & 135 degree heat soon had the company in revolt. When the daily rushes showed Boyer's face had burned a bright tomato red, producer David O. Selznick finally gave in. The remainder of the film was shot on a Hollywood sound stage.

Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10.

I stumbled upon this movie by accident. I mean, how else could I find out? It wasn't hyped at all by the studios, nor did I even hear about it's release from my normally plugged in friends. After throwing my money away on so many bad movies this year, I wish I could've seen this one in theaters as opposed to DVD. Mike Judge is the master of disguising deliciously intelligent humor in a low brow package. Just watch 'King of the Hill' for a while...it's ostensibly redneck humor, but it's a very subtle jab at rednecks while being very sympathetic at the same time. I read the tagline for this film, and immediately I ordered it off the internet. I really don't understand where these negative reviews are coming from, except maybe from Carl's Jr. This movie is not only hilarious, but it's balanced as well. Moments of levity are interspersed between hilarious sight gags and jabs at our current superstar/corporate culture. Sure, there is some fart humor, but it's only there to laugh at derisively. The premise is only semi-plausible, but since when did that even matter? I don't see people heaping scorn upon 'Futurama' because the premise is very similar. Just watch this movie. If you don't laugh, then something is really wrong with you. Maybe your dad works for Gatorade or something, and he was really offended by the movie. Maybe you're an idiot. Probably the latter.

I loved 'The Curse of Frankenstein' so much that I rushed out to get 'Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed' to see Cushing at it again...even if it was without Chistopher Lee this time. To my great disappointment, this movie not only does without Lee, but it does without Frankenstein's Monster altogether! Was it a case of 'If we can't get Lee, we won't have a monster at all'? Why would they do that? The monster is half the fun of the whole thing!! This film is dedicated solely to the study of Baron Frankenstein and his quest to finish experiments he had begun in brain transplants before ending up in an asylum. I found the script extremely weak, with the need to suspend disbelief forced upon the audience a little too much. I'm willing to suspend a fair amount, but this movie got fairly ridiculous, which took me out of the film rather than immersing me in it.<br /><br />Peter Cushing, though, is absolutely brilliant playing pure evil in this film. For being one of the most beloved actors and notoriously sweet men, he sure could play menacing and malevolent extremely well. The supporting cast is competent, but has little to do, even the young doctor and his fiancée blackmailed into helping Frankenstein. A bumbling police chief is introduced, along with his put-upon sidekick, to generate some comic relief, then they are completely dropped from the movie! Why? We are led to believe that the police chief will be the main nemesis of the Baron, then we are led to believe it will be the young doctor, and then it ends up being the victim of Frankenstein's brain transplant experiment. There was no tension, we weren't invested in the 'creature', and the ending was left so ambiguous as to leave one unsatisfied because it is so clear they are setting up another sequel.<br /><br />Also, there are virtually no 'horror' elements. Yes, there is a beheading in the beginning (off-camera), and we are treated to the sounds of Cushing cutting the tops of two men's skulls off (again, off camera), and there is the most unsettling and thoroughly unnecessary rape scene (90% of which is, again, off-camera). I understand that there is a love of 'letting the audience imagine it all, for their imaginations are far worse than what we can show', but come on, if you're not going to give us a Monster, then at least let us SEE the few 'horrific' elements you do choose to include. Showing us a skeleton in the lab lit with a green light is just not scary.<br /><br />On top of a weak script, I thought the directing was mostly flat. There were a couple of nice shots, but otherwise no excitement, atmosphere, or suspense was generated. The same director did 'Curse' back in 1958 and I thought it was brilliantly directed...guess he was as uninspired by this film as I was.<br /><br />The movie gets a 4 out of 10 from me strictly for Peter Cushing's powerful, nuanced performance...beyond that, I found little in this movie worth recommending. Instead, my suggestion is to watch 'The Curse of Frankenstein' and see a truly great Hammer horror film.

I found this to be a tremendously disappointing version of a charming story. I thought the acting was on the whole quite good. Reginald Owen did chew the scenery, as mentioned by others, but I found him moderately amusing in his brief scenes. TCM has made an Ann Harding fan of me, and I thought she was fine as usual here. Jessie Ralph had a field day as the old battleaxe, ordering everybody around, and Frank Morgan, as always, played Frank Morgan with a twinkle.<br /><br />For me, the problem was the script and/or the editing--transitions were awkward, motivations were murky. The movie was just too darned short to convey the story properly! I felt completely let down, particularly since I had such fond memories of the later version.

Wow. I've never seen nor heard of this film. It just came on tv (2:00 am) and I am in complete awe. Setup: a bunch of rich fat cats are out golfing. One knocks a ball into the rough. It lands by a NINJA!!!! A tuxedoed man walks over to pick the ball up. The ninja grabs it. Crushes it in his hand. Man pulls gun. Ninja pulls blowgun. Ninja blows dart into gun barrel. GUN EXPLODES!!!! This is just the beginning of the greatness, people. Everyone must see this movie. 10 big ol fat stars from trusty.

Laurence Fishburne is a fine actor, and deserves respect for trying this, but he is not in a class with the great Shakespeareans like Olivier and Welles; and he further suffers from Kenneth Branagh. This Irishman, always brilliant, cleanly steals the show away. Olivier recognized that potential in his production, and cast Iago with someone he knew he could upstage. I didn't nearly realize the possibilities of Iago, Shakespeare's most evil character, but Branagh shows us the depths. Nice to see the views of Venice, too.

*** Contains Spoilers ***<br /><br />I did not like this movie at all.<br /><br />I found it amazingly boring and rather superficially made, irrespective of the importance and depth of the proposed themes: given that eventually we have to die, how should we approach life? In a 'light' way, like Tomas; in a 'heavy' way like Tereza; or should we find ways not to face that question, like Sabina? How much is fidelity important in a relationship? How much of the professional life can be mutilated for the sake of our loved ones? How much do we have to be involved in the political life and the social issues of our Country?<br /><br />Unfortunately, I haven't read Kundera's novel but after having being let down by the movie I certainly will: I want to understand if the story was ruined by the movie adaptation (which is my guess) or if it was dull from the beginning.<br /><br />I disagree with most of the positive comments that defined the movie as a masterpiece. I simply don't see the reasons why. What I see are many flaws, and a sample of them follows.<br /><br />1) The three main characters are thrown at you and it's very hard to understand what drives them when making their choices.<br /><br />2) The 'secondary' characters are there just to fill the gaps but they don't add nothing to the story and you wonder if they are really necessary.<br /><br />3) I did not like how Tomas was impersonated. Nothing is good for him. He is so self-centered and selfish. He is not human, in some sense. But when his self-confidence fails and he realizes that he depends on others and is emotionally linked to someone, I did not find the interpretation credible.<br /><br />4) It's very unlikely that an artist like Sabina could afford her lifestyle in a communist country in 1968. On top of that, the three main characters are all very successful in their respective professions, which sounds strange to me. a) how can Tereza become effortlessly such a good photographer? b) how can they do so well in a country lacking all the economic incentives that usually motivate people to succeed?<br /><br />5) The fake accents of the English spoken by the actors are laughable. And I am not even mother tongue. Moreover, the letter that Sabina receives while in the US is written in Czech, which I found very inconsistent.<br /><br />6) Many comments praised the movie saying that Prague was beautifully rendered: I guess that most of the movie was shot on location, so it's not difficult to give the movie a Eastern European feeling, and given the intrinsic beauty of Prague is not even difficult to make it look good.<br /><br />7) I found the ending sort of trivial. Tereza and Tomas, finally happy in the countryside, far away from the temptations of the 'metropoly', distant from the social struggles their fellow citizens are living, detached from their professional lives, die in a car accident. But they die after having realized that they are happy, indeed. So what? Had they died unhappy, would the message of the movie have been different? I don't think so. I considered it sort of a cheap trick to please the audience.<br /><br />8) The only thing in the movie which is unbearably light is the way the director has portrayed the characters. You see them for almost three hours, but in the end you are left with nothing. You don't feel empathy, you don't relate to them, you are left there in your couch watching a sequence of events and scenes that have very little to say.<br /><br />9) I hated the 'stop the music in the restaurant' scene (which some comments praised a lot). Why Sabina has got such a strong reaction? Why Franz agrees with her? I really don't see the point. The only thing you learn is that Sabina has got a very bad temper and quite a strong personality. That's it. What's so special and unique about it?<br /><br />After all these negative comments, let me point tout that there are two scenes that I liked a lot (that's why I gave it a two).<br /><br />The 'Naked women Photoshoot', where the envy, the jealousy, and the insecurities of Sabina and Tereza are beautifully presented.<br /><br />The other scene is the one representing the investigations after the occupation of Prague by the Russians. Tereza pictures, taken to let the world know about what is going on in Prague, are used to identify the people taking part to the riots. I found it quite original and Tereza's sense of despair and guilt are nicely portrayed.<br /><br />Finally, there is a tiny possibility that the movie was intentionally 'designed' in such a way that 'Tomas types' are going to like it and 'Tereza ones' are going to hate it. If this is the case (I strongly doubt it, though) then my comment should be revised drastically.

This movie packs a punch. There are a few every now and then that make me think deeply, and disturb me a lot. I could see myself in this same predicament - passively allowing things to happen around me, not standing up for the right and decent thing, just trying to avoid trouble. How often do we avoid making waves or sticking our necks out? How often does our inaction condone the evil actions of others. We would never join them, we tell ourselves, we recognize that what they are doing is bad, but do we do anything about it? <br /><br />Lawrence Newman (William H. Macey) is a low-key, nerdy office worker who has paid off his home in Brooklyn, NY in the waning days of World War II. He rarely gets engaged in what is going on around him, has never married, rarely socializes, just goes to work and cares for his invalid mother. Then a series of events in his very 'white' little neighborhood pull him out of his complacent shell into a maelstrom of events. It starts as he witness from his bedroom window the rape of a Puerto Rican girl by the son of his neighbor. Soon after he gets glasses because of poor vision. As he is now better able to see, he becomes less able to deal with the circumstances of his life. The one bright spot is a new love in his life, and he marries, hoping to continue on in his normalcy. Then the virulent anti-semitism on that street catches him, despite his credentials as a Presbyterian WASP. As things spiral further out of control, he discovers he must make an important decision - does he take a stand or does he simply go away.<br /><br />I cannot how anybody can view this movie without being affected and having to think very much about themselves and what they really stand for. Post war anti-semitism is the setting here, but there is injustice at all times and in all places. It is for the individual to decide where he or she stands.

'Five Fingers of Death' started the American kung-fu movie craze but I remember seeing it for the first time as 'King Boxer' in Chinatown, NYC, without the bad dubbing and few Americans. I also was fortunate enough to see the American premiere of 'Five Fingers Of Death' on Times Square, NYC. What a contrast this turned out to be...same film but different audiences.<br /><br />In Chinatown, this film took on a more serious tone to the viewers. It was because of hearing the real voices of the actors(In Chinese) that made this movie more believable. Chinatown theaters were showing violent kung fu films for years(1972's 'Boxer From Shantung' beat them all in gore), so the action choreography & story were the main attraction. Rival school plots were not overused yet so the storyline seemed fresh. Every great kung fu film had wonderful, dastardly villains you wanted to see get their comeuppance and FFoD had them too. The star, Lieh Lo, was a known actor in Chinese theaters. The mostly Chinese audience enjoyed this film immensely. The audience buzz while leaving this film gives the final satisfaction to me.<br /><br />On Times Square, this film was an action comedy...probably unintentionally. I enjoyed it here too but for different reasons. The crowd was ethnic and quite energetic. From the start, the movie made you laugh. As soon as the audience heard those strange British accents come from those Chinese actors the movie turned into a violent and gory cartoon. Most American audiences saw this kind of gore in a horror film not in an action film. The action sequences blew the audience away. Unfortunately, the movie studios saw that they enjoyed it so much that, bad dubbing and unnecessary violence became a kung fu flick formula.<br /><br />I had fun seeing this movie with an American audience but enjoyed it much more in Chinatown. Some films can pass the test of time but the dubbed version of FFoD can't. The original 'King Boxer' is still enjoyable...a CLASSIC!

The movie is great for Venezuelan tourism, birds, birds and more birds. Only 1 piranha. Nice scenery. The only highlight was the alligator seen during a very long and boring motorcycle race. The end when Caribe drowns is a definite Hollywood prop. There is no definite storyline. It goes from Venezuelan scenery to a rip off of easy rider to diamond mining and a ruthless hunter going crazy for some reason who gets it in the end. A very low budget movie that could have been filmed anywhere with outtakes of Venezuela. William Smith is a very talented actor that has made some very good movies. Like all actors they all need to have at least one bad film Don't waste the $5.00 on the DVD.

In what appears an attempt to mix drama and comedy, Manuel Gomez Pereira made this film, 'Things that make life worthwhile. 'It is not an original discovery, by many voice you have (quite off the pitch, by the way), but it departs somewhat from the norm in the Spanish cinema. The downside is that the elements forming the film are poorly combined, and while some points are not well developed, others are out of place. A day in the lives of two people close to the median age. It's basically what the movie Gómez Pereira. Jorge (Eduard Fernandez) is a stationary (parado) one which, despite load on your back with a drama major, seems willing to see things change. Only this explains his commitment to a minor could mean a turning point in its existence. In line with Audrey Tautou of 'Long dating' (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2004), Jorge says things like this to herself: 'if I find a coin before the corner that is now going to change my luck. ' Of course it finds it, begins to play 'Today could be a great day' (Hoy puede ser un gran dia)by Joan Manuel Serrat and in a few crosses on its way Hortensia (Ana Belen).She is another woman entry age, divorced and a little lonely. Take valeriana for sleeping, organizes birthday parties as an exemplary mother, said her belief in God and leads to a speed of homicidal mother. Hortensia is a woman of many contradictions in his behavior, life was going in his head driving data as '70% of people fall in love only once in a lifetime' and said although it is short of Jorge and unemployed and does not preclude the possibility that it is a 'sadistic' sleeping in his shoulder in the cinema at the earliest opportunity. Later came a communion, a dance in the luxurious wedding banquet, the back of a car and other things that players seem to live unique experiences like that but end up doing quite heavy for the viewer. 'Things that make life worthwhile' debate between us is the drama of two adult persons who have no other that leads them to see where their strange relationship and, conversely, make us take the case as a comedy, focusing on things like a Chinese singing at a wedding (which seem to be amusing in itself) or the gait of a drunk person. The problem is that it does not leave us time to connect with the players, therefore we can not identify with the dramatic, and not give us a solid base comic too, leaving everything except pure joke. In the end, all mixed in a way that the viewer no longer know very well whether to laugh or mourn, and ends up not doing either. And it is true that something is not seen a thousand times, is not the kind of film that we find to bend every corner, but it is not sufficiently different or special as we want to do. Ana Belén (which apparently far less than the 53 years that has in this film) and Eduard Fernandez are two actors who are very enjoyable to see working, but this time it seems ready or comfortable enough in scenes that require him to break the calm that prevails in the film, so in moments like the 'accident' with the children of the bar thing seems to be slipping from their hands. Perhaps a very dramatic change that has to do, but that is no excuse to lower our guard. In any case, both interpreters are erected easily the highlight of the function. 'Things that make life worthwhile' work only up to the modest level of entertainment. Any claim that is beyond that point has not been fulfilled, as a romantic comedy or dramatic as that, we presume, they wanted to do, can not afford to have little moments finished successful (beyond bad) as that in which one of the characters talk and laugh, lost drunk, compared to a boy who remains in a coma in part because of him. Neither do much for people like Rosario Pardo, making the typical friend launched whose biggest contribution to the film is the phrase 'must be screwed over,' and songs from the soundtrack, though significant, not just fit. It is true that the film by Manuel Gomez Pereira has its hits (some of the moments involving Jose Sacristan), but the whole is a anodyne Story, a film with good intentions and a nice result when the better.

This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen! Me and my husband own over 600 DVDs, most of which are Sci-Fi and Horror B-Movies that aren't top quality, but still entertaining. Dracula 300 had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all! The writing was horrific, and the acting was even worse. It took us a 3 tries to get through the entire movie, because we could only tolerate it in 30 minute intervals. We thought surely it must get better...we were wrong. I would rather watch a corpse being embalmed than to have to sit through that again!!! When it ended me and my husband just looked at each other like 'Uh..is that it?' The ending seemed like there was supposed to be more, but they ran over their apparent $500.00 budget and were like 'Oh, crap...we are broke..end it now...quick..roll credits!'

It saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again plays…Jack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got it.

This started out to be a movie about the street culture of the Bronx in New York. What it accomplished was to give birth to a new culture and way of life, for American youth. What other movie has done this except Rebel Without A Cause? One of the most important movies of all time. The elements are simple yet fascinating. The story is timeless, young people try to succeed against all odds. Yet the story is always believable and never depressing. The characters are so realistic, a city dweller, would recognize them as neighbors. The story is entertaining, and comes to a satisfying ending. Buy this one for your permanent collection. It is a piece of American history.

this is one of the funniest shows i have ever seen. it is really refreshing to watch and i was in stitches many times. i guess there is a social awareness factor to this too which makes it quite interesting. if these were white girls would they get the same reaction? maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't? the characters know no limits (check my lyrics) and do not exclude anyone from their twisted sense of fun!There are so many funny sketches. my favorites is the bob the builder one. it's so silly it's genius. if you like twisted black comedy then this is for you. if you like keeping up appearances it probably isn't.3 non blonde's is yet another hilarious British BBC comedy shown on TV! It is such a funny show and the characters unleashed on the unsuspecting public are laugh at loud funny! It would be impossible to keep a straight face watching the crazy characters and the reactions of the public! This series easily adds to the excellent comedies being produced!

I totally disagree with the comments of one of the critics before me who bashed the film. Having read the book, being impressed by it although this is a kind of literature that you cannot really LIKE (similar to Hubert Selby's writing) I expected being shocked but the effect was more subtle than this. Isabelle Hubert is a brilliant actress who manages to convey a multi-layered character. There are many scenes that totally focus on her and her subtle changes and I can imagine few actresses who would do so well, with so much disregard for their own reputation or image. There is this coldness, distance, cruelty and at the same time there's this helplessness, hurt and pain. There's a person who's in control and controlled at the same time. Maybe this is not realistic - although when you read the newspaper you'll read about much worse than this - but there's a truth to it that is very difficult to bear. I think it's an excellent film but I did not enjoy watching it.It's not boring but there are times when I wished it would end. BTW, her male counterpart is very well acted as well (and I think well chosen, too).

Clive Barker of Hellraiser fame has written and produced a fantasy horror film that is funny and exciting.<br /><br />The make-up done by Bob Keen and Geoffrey Portass was fantastic. It took quite an imagination to come up with these mutants that lived underground. It was really a treat to see the quality of work.<br /><br />It wasn't particularly horrible, as the worst creature was actually a human serial killer.<br /><br />I just saw Craig Sheffer in Shadow of Doubt the other day and he did a good job in this film also. Nothing spectacular, but fair. This was only Anne Bobby's third film, and she was good also.<br /><br />The ending was spectacular and the rednecks got their just desserts, as did David Cronenberg. Ha!

I noticed 'Fire' was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon.

Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of 'The Three Amigos', only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which 'Play Dead' is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which 'Play Dead' is. What 'Play Dead' really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from 'A Simple Plan', while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK

First lesson that some film makers (particularly those inspired by Hollywood) need to know - just 'style' does not sell. I guess Tashan when translated will mean style. Second, if you are hell bent on selling style, that does not spare you from having a decent story.<br /><br />Tashan has some story which could have sufficed with some better director. But it is not slick. For example, all three - Saif, Kareena and Akshay - are narrators at different points in the story. But this setup is not utilized to properly. There could have been a better mix and match of their narrations. Actions sequences are from the seventies.<br /><br />Cheoreography of the film is awful. I think Vaibhavi Merchant just sleep walked through this film. Vishal-Shekhar have put up a good score but it does not belong to this film. Why is there a sufi song (Dil Haara) in Tashan? Why is the cool Hinglish song (Dil Dance Maare) not on Anil Kapoor when he is the one who is English crazy? <br /><br />Akshay Kumar is the saving grace of the film. But he is in his stereotyped self. You won't mind missing this film.

This is a better adaptation of the book than the one with Paltrow (although I liked that one, too). It isn't so much that Beckinsale is better -- they are both very good -- but that the screenplay is better. Davies is a master at adapting Austen for filming, and the production values here are very good. It's not quite as glossy as the Hollywood treatment, but it's close, and I thought that the locations and the costumes actually worked better.

With actors like Depardieu and Richard it is really a hard task to make a dull movie. But Weber is a master in setting a slow pace and making supposedly funny scenes without any wits and depth. This movie is high on story but low on character. You never get to know any of the characters except for superficial slapstick. Unfortunately Weber has no idea what slapstick is all about. His style could be described at hit and miss. Of course some people laugh when they see someone slip on a banana peel. Weber directs his humor at this lot. It is a shame how bad he uses good talent. Many good french comedians have been wasted away by mediocre directors.

Apparently SHRUNKEN HEADS was the last movie that Julius Harris had a role in. I have not seen all of his movies, but Julius Harris was in many good movies, and I remember him best from 'Live and Let Die' where he played Tee-Hee and which was full of Voodoo references, something that is common here in South Florida! I always thought LIVE AND LET DIE was a great movie because it had some atmosphere and mystique, unlike most of the 007 movies. In SHRUNKEN HEADS, Julius Harris is back in his Voodoo persona! He has a great style for mystery and the occult, and his part in this movie is excellent. Sadly, the rest of the movie is something of a comedy. SPOILERS: Three kids who look like they were fired from the cast of THE LITTLE RASCALS get killed by a neighborhood hoodlum who looks like he got fired from the cast of FAME! or as a dancer on DICK CLARK'S AMERICAN BANDSTAND. In other words, these kids give LOW BUDGET another dimension. Julius Harris goes to the mortuary-Funeral Home, cuts off the three kids' heads (and nobody notices) and then takes them to his Condominium Unit where he has a giant cauldron of boiling liquids. The three heads get tossed in, along with some herbs, spices, and Voodoo items. At some point Mr. Harris has the ugly little heads on a table and he spills his blood on them, and they come to life as talking heads! They can fly, make jokes, roll their eyes, and exact vengeance from the Evil-Doers. They usually look pretty funny flying around, but the effects are not bad. For some reason, one of the kids always has a switch-blade in his mouth, and he uses it to slice people's necks and to cut holes into tires. This movie is weird and funny, but only the first time you see it. Meg Foster is in this movie and she looks fatter than Rosie O'Donnell and Meg plays a masculine leader of the local gangsters. Strange movie.

Sequels hardly ever live up to the original. This definitely proves true in this case. However, if you're a big fan of the original than definitely give this a watch. Although the camera work is lacking, Brian Krause's character is annoying, and the plot is clique, it's much more funnier than the first and that is what I find entertaining about it. <br /><br />Don't see this movie expecting the same performance as in the first film. Quite frankly it's a bit different. Rather than sitting in his cabin writing screenplays, Stanley is off in Hollywood trying to direct his dream project, Cabin by the Lake. This movie has a much different feel but it's still great to see Stanley back in action.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 6 out of 10.

When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall 'Craig Manor', an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...<br /><br />This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line 'I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U.' Whew!<br /><br />THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla 'She Creature' English, 50s hunk John 'Revenge Of The Creature' Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess 'Mr. Susan Hayward' Barker, Kathleen 'It Came From Outer Space' Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.<br /><br />B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer).

I purchased this video on VCR tape in a good-will store for US 50 cents. I have taken quite a few videos I purchased back for them to sell to others after I viewed them considering the 50 cent cost as a rental. This is the only one that will never go back. It is an explosion of artistic talent, color and sound. I don't know if I should calls it circus, dance, or both. It is bigger than life itself. They will only be able to do this well for just a few brief years in their life. These are the performers for the performers. If Gene Kelly and Burt Lancaster were alive today and saw them live they would be awe-struck. I would lend it to others to watch but I know if I do that I will never get it back.

I was really looking forward to watching this film. It had all the ingredients of a great tongue in cheeker, but it just didn't come together AT ALL. Kevin Spacey's accent was tolerable except that sometimes he forgot to use it and I would rather NOT have had to listen to Linda Fiorentino's pale attempt. She and Helen Baxendale were totally lacking in charm and personality, thankfully their screen kids had loads, so you could find at least some members of his 2 families endearing. You could have strained spaghetti with the plot and I'm sure that the script was written by some adolescent schoolboy in a high school English competition. That said, when I wasn't cringing, I was smirking so it wasn't a totally wasted 90 minutes. I did find the superimposing of Kevin's face on the painting very clever and quite funny. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I was expecting a bit of quality viewing and it just never came.

lets start off by saying that 'JAWANI DIWANI' is just a pathetic movie. I agree with the last person who said 'I missed the joyride'. lol. <br /><br />The jokes were just terrible. Performances were average. Something went terribly wrong with the film. Emraan totally deserved something better. All CELINA JAITLEY did was expose. Hrishitta bhatt was OK. Emraan hashmi was OK too.<br /><br />MANN (EMRAAN HASHMI)is a desperate guy who wants to become famous. therefore, he uses RADHA and pretends he loves her, only because her father is a music director and could help him become famous (since, the father obeys everything his daughter says). One day, MANN and his friends go to GOA to have some fun. There he meets ROMA (CELINA JAITLEY) and totally falls for her looks and tries to flirt with her BLA BLA BLA. <br /><br />Then, that night ROMA cannot open the door to her room, and MANN decides to help her. Seeing that he cannot as well, ROMA goes to ask for help. While she is gone, MANN is able to open the door and decides to come inside and sits on her bed BLA BLA BLA. ROMA comes in and they have a one night stand. However, in that one night- stand ROMA falls in love with him. That morning, they spot the underworld don (MAHESH)who sees it all. The don loves ROMA and couldn't stand what he saw. He orders them to get married, and being frightened, MANN obeys the order and Merry's ROMA. Then, their marriage news ends up in the newspaper. MANN is later finds out that he loves ROMA after they do a music video together. He is now trapped between love and fame. BLA BLA BLA.<br /><br />the movie is horrible. The songs 'SINI NE SINI NE' is fantastic the remix version is even better. 'DIL DIWANA' is also great. The title track is also awesome. GUYS, AVOID WATCHING THIS MOVIE.

I just saw this movie at the Berlin Film Festival's Children's Program and it just killed me (and pretty much everyone else in the audience)! And make no mistake about it, this film belongs into the all-time-250! Let me tell you that I'm in no way associated with the creators of this film if that's what you come to believe reading this. No, but this actually is IT! Nevermind the 'kid's-film' label on it, 'Klatretösen' ('Climber Girl') is on almost every account a classic (as in 'biblical')! The story concerns 12-year old Ida (magnetic: Julie Zangenberg), who is devastated to learn of her daddy's terminal illness. Special surgery in the US would cost 1.5 million and of course, nobody could afford that. So Ida and her friends Jonas and Sebastian do what every good kid would - and burglarize a bank! Sounds corny? Don't forget: This is not America and 'Klatretösen' is by no means the tear-jerking Robin-Williams-multiplex-plat-du-jour nobody takes seriously anyway. Director Fabian Wullenweber set out to make a big-budget-action-comedy for kids and, boy, did he succeed! Let me put it this way: This film rocks like no kid-film and few others did before. And there's a whole lot more to it than just the 'action'. After about 20 minutes of by-the-numbers-exposition (well, granted) it accelerates into a monster that:<br /><br />- effortlessly puts 'mission impossible' to shame (the numerous action sequences are masterfully staged and look real expensive - take that, mummy!)<br /><br />- dwarves almost every other movie suspense-wise ( no easy-they're-only-kids-antics here )<br /><br />- easily laces a dense story with enough laughs to make jim carrey look for career alternatives<br /><br />- nods to both damon runyon and karate kid within the same seconds<br /><br />- comes up with so much wicked humor that side of p.c. that I can hear the American ratings board wet their pants from over here<br /><br />- manages to actually be tender and serious and sexy at the same time (ohmygod, what am I saying?? they're kids! they're kids! - nevermind, watch that last scene!)<br /><br />- stars Stafan Pagels Anderson, who since last years 'Mirakel' is everybody's favourite kid actor<br /><br />What a ride!

I saw this as a child in the late eighties and I must say, Galaxy Express is one of those films that sticks in your imagination for a long time. If you've never understood the appeal of anime, discovering this film may be your golden ticket to Otaku-town.<br /><br />The story is as delicate and poetic as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. The cell animation, while somewhat traditional, possesses a vivid style that explosively portrays Leiji Matsumoto's great talent for character design and visual storytelling.<br /><br />This is one of those unique children's films like Star Wars, The Dark Crystal and The Wizard of Oz that completely transcends 'family entertainment' status and stands as a classic of cinema on its own terms.<br /><br />I highly recommend this film.

OK when I saw the previews for this movie I thought it looked really scary and was quite excited to see it as were the group I was with. Now living in America especially during this election I see some very deceiving things but I have to say these previews were towards the top of list. I don't see how so many people could be scared by this movie. I only really noticed two real jump scenes and only jumped at one. The whole movie was extremely predictable and perhaps that messed up some of the jump scenes for me. As for the sound effects so many to be so frightened of I thought they were comical at best. Oh and the uhh catboy where did that come from and why? The worst noise in the whole movie had to be the weird groaning. How does that scare someone? I can make that noise easily. Now don't get me wrong I have always loved all those really bad scary movies that your just laughing the whole way through but I didn't even think this one had that going for it it was just plain out bad.

The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!<br /><br />To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.

Please, even if you are in the worst of the moods, refrain from watching this flick. <br /><br />I don't think whether anything was right with this movie at all. On a friend's recommendation I watched this and I literally flushed 1h and 48 min of my life down the closet. Poor acting, stupid direction, weak storyline and pathetic action sequences - and when you blend this together you get 'Double Impact'. Even least of the expectations were not met. <br /><br />I guess I did learn one thing - Never watch Van Damme action flicks. They are pure wastage of time !

I didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams 'Afterschool special'. Anyhoo.<br /><br />Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.<br /><br />We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.<br /><br />But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering 'Jay Jay, what am I doing here?' made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.<br /><br />Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here.

I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.<br /><br />Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a 'tastefully' done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and 'swings' it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of 'role reversal' rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.<br /><br />There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.<br /><br />Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.<br /><br />5/10

This is one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films, and one of his most underrated. I believe it certainly exceeds a 'Psycho' or 'The Birds' for technical artistry and brilliance. It is a macabre, tense, darkly humorous product that will leave you in awe for quite some time.<br /><br />Robert Walker creates one of Hitchcock's most memorable villains as the father-hating, mother-fixated (but aren't most of Hitchcock's villains mummy's boys?) Bruno. It is a disturbing, stunning performance that illuminates the whole film. His character is obsessive, apparently homosexual (look at those deliberately effeminate ties and hear how he is described as 'European'), strangely charming and dangerous to cross. Farley Granger certainly knows this as he becomes entangled in Bruno's sordid web after the pair meet on a train. Bruno, knowing some inside information on Guy's affairs, proposes the two 'swap' murders for each other's benefit. Walker will kill Granger's slutty, conniving wife who is inhibiting his marriage to beautiful Anne, whilst Granger will murder Bruno's father, who he so intensely hates. Everyone's happy, right? A win-win, as Bruno asserts? Wrong. Granger forgets about the indecent proposal, but an obsessed Walker doesn't. He commits his murder and is determined to hound Granger until he completes his side of the bargain too. 'Strangers' becomes a riveting, suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse in Hitch's capable hands.<br /><br />Hitchcock was absolutely amazing at creating intriguing minor characters and building scenes. We have the whore Miriam, Granger's estranged wife pregnant to another man. She lasciviously slurps a phallic ice-cream cone whilst openly eating up Bruno with her eyes. Barbara Morton, Anne's sister, is a deceptively sweet yet smart and cunning young girl who comes out with the most crude remarks you'll hear from a bespectacled girl in the pictures in the 50's. Senator Morton is authoritative and self-absorbed. This is one of the most daring films Hitchcock ever made, and it is, typical to a Hitch film, subtly sexual in detail.<br /><br />This fits into the film-noir category with it's focus on murder, lies and deceit and shadowy cinematography. Walker's nut is one for the ages, and Granger makes a convincing troubled protagonist. Roman is perhaps weaker than the other two, and I never believed her relationship with Granger. Still, the overwhelming positives cancel out the slight negatives and it can be safely said that this is one of the BEST American films ever made.<br /><br />Just look at what Hitch does here- the originality, the technical skill. We see the murder of Miriam reflected in her shattered glasses. A game of tennis turns into one of the most thrilling, intense scenes you'll ever see. A innocent fairground turns into a place of murder and foul occurrences. A young boy's balloon is popped callously by Walker (Hitch obviously liked what he saw in 'The Third Man!').Children's delight at riding the carousel turns into screaming, fast-paced terror. Hitch subverts normal, everyday events like no other.<br /><br />The camera-work here is among the best ever seen in a Hitchcock film, and the premise is to-die-for. It's slick, oozes sophistication and devilish charm. The cross-cutting between Walker and Granger's characters is magnificent- Granger's do-or-die tennis match is just as vital as villain Walker's rescue of an incriminating piece of evidence lost down a drain. Hitch again build his villain into a nasty, repulsive yet sympathetic and oddly charming (Did anyone else find him strangely attractive, more so than Granger?) piece of work- we are just as tense as Walker in our hope that he can get the lighter out of the drain. We need him to, anyway. He holds the key to the story.<br /><br />You'll never view an approach from a stranger in the same way again after seeing this film.<br /><br />Amazing.<br /><br />10/10.

I cannot believe I actually set up a 'season pass' on my TiVo for this, apparently they had a good preview or something .. I can't imagine it though. After seeing about 5 minutes I thought to myself.. why am I watching this.. It is definitely not reality, and some of the worst acting I have ever seen on television.. I am a total addict of reality TV and there is nothing real about this. THE ACTING.. (if you can call it that) is awful.. The only ones that are almost 5% decent are the girls that are meant to draw viewers to the show.. although they would need to be a lot prettier to save this train wreck.. if they would have more lines they would probably change my mind as they probably have no talent either. This is obviously a very low budget production with 'actors' who are apparently very cheap. There is no way they could get a job in anything else. Someone needs to direct these people to a job in food service.. Maybe they could do that. Oh and by the way, Parco P.I. no longer occupies any space on my TiVo or TiVo's season pass list. Definitely the worst show I've ever seen.

Some aspects of this production are good, such as the performances of Angela Lansbury, George Hearn, Cris Groenendaal, and Sal Mistretta. But am I the only one who is distracted by the horrible performance by Betsy Joslyn as Johanna? She is terrible! She slauters the songs with her screechy voice and overacts in a role she clearly doesn't understand. I also think the chorus isn't up to snuff. They drag the tempo and make the worst facial expressions. Overall, I think this production is okay, but Sweeney Todd can be so much more if done correctly. This production doesn't come near the level this material demands. The concert version with George Hearn and Patti LuPone is much better.

OUCH, No real need to say anything else. This movie actually had me contemplating suicide. As a huge fan of the wonderful genre that is zombie movies I found this to quite possibly be the worst attempt I have ever been privy too. The film never actually seemed to go ANYWHERE! What was the point to it all, I am left feeling hopeless and lost. Hell this was so bad i cant even justify bashing it anymore. I'm just gonna go hang myself in the closet. OK now I tried to submit my comment but the server will only accept comments that are ten lines or more. So here it goes... Bad, horrible, no where near enough gore. NO TITS!!!!!!How can you have a Zombie movie without tits. As a matter of fact the female lead had one hell of a rack and the only reason I watched the film to completion was in order to maybe by chance get a glimpse. NOPE! Of course there was one line that does deserve mentioning, a line I am looking forward to using myself someday (when i just feel the need to get my face smacked) 'This hog isn't going to smoke itself' This movie is bad, so bad.

hello everyone, all i have to say is that Human Traffic and all of its characters are so real its funny. I live in Australia (melbourne) and I'm finally out of the clubbing and staying out all weekend lifestyle. This movie explains everything that is currently going on in the world. So exactly that i cant stop watching it.... I used to be exactly like Moff, so my friends said and i hadn't even seen the movie.. I left the weekend partying behind about 3 months ago after 4 years of intense partying to change my life around.. I was at a DVD store when i saw Human Traffic and i remember my old friends going on an on about it, so i bought it to see what all the fuss was about.. I was so into it i watched it 4 times in a row because i couldn't believe that someone had made a movie that explains everything to a T. Anyways this movie is by far the best and funniest movie i have ever seen.. Its funny because its so truthful in everything that goes on in the movie.. AND Moff is a legend!!! Thats all i have to say.. :) Enjoy 11/10 blew my socks off at how real it was, its exactly whats going on in the world.. hr rm i jabber a lot<br /><br />take care everyone...

Seeing that this got a theatrical release nowhere around the globe, it only serves as a reminder of were the careers of those talent-free ladies Denise Richards and Milla Jovovich went. It also is a particular grating kind of movie, the kind that think they are smart, funny and original while being poor in every aspect. Full blame can go to Brian Burns, who wrote and directed this potboiler. His script takes a quite unoriginal situation and goes exactly nowhere with it. The situations develop completely without any inner logic, besides that of a desperate scriptwriter. Characters are thinner than cardboard cutouts, behave stupid and without any real motivation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the inclusion of Mrs. Richards. We don't believe her relationship with David Krumholtz's character for one minute and the way she is brought back into play after the one-hour mark is particularly pitiful. Why would anyone fall for a egocentric, self-obsessed, arrogant b**ch like this in the first place, much less a second time? Especially after having supposedly found his..erm...true love? And if any of these things aren't enough to completely sink this movie, than the central couple is. The coupling of Krumholtz and Jovovich is only slightly more believable or developed than the Richards-one, but it is to no avail. There is no chemistry, no spark, nothing that we might loosely accept as a credible couple. Worse, these two central characters are particularly annoying and irritating, doing annoying and irritating things the viewer finally has no interest in, whatsoever.<br /><br />Overall, a very poor showing. Even die-hard rom-com fans might want to pass on this one, as there are dozens of movie made with more skill or more charm.

Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought 'No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame.' I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.

I see what the director was trying to do but he missed the mark. The main actor was really good but the editing around his moments takes you out of it. The camera work, ie lighting and exposer is kind of amateur which I could forgive if the direction was more fluent but it wasn't. The sound was a bit off and that takes you out of the film as well. I see could see this director doing a little bit better in the future so not a total right off but don't expect a dv movie nearly as good as 28 days later or anything, keep your expectations low and you'll get more out of it. At least it was only an hour and a half. Oh yeah and other than the lead the acting was pretty bad if you ask me. But I'm a movie snob so take that for what that's worth.

I just read an extra long review on the front page of this movie on this site and he explained in full detail that this movie is only worth watching on the television show 'Mystery Science Theater 3000!!!!!' And yes, I do find that advice really helpful! I mean, a movie that tries to be this good and this exciting just really is not what that movie wants to be!!!!! So yes, do watch this movie as seen on that show and instead of giving this movie a single star out of ten stars, you can give this a ten out of ten stars! Until then, my one star review is for the real, pure, untouched version of this movie only!!!!!! Got that now?

I found Dominion to be a lousy attempt to continue the success of the story. The original movie was a story about evil, and how it can infiltrate our lives.<br /><br />Schrader's version is lacking in evil. Viewers do not get an overwhelming sense of dread, fear, or even foreboding. Harlin's version offers evident evil, shows violations of the church's sanctity, and builds a convincing story that is plausible, given Father Merrin's background. Schrader's story leaves one wondering exactly what happened. Dominion does not evoke the emotions of the viewers to empathize with Father Merrin, and leaves the viewer wondering exactly why he was troubled in the first place.<br /><br />Anyone interested in seeing a sequel which lives up to the original should see Exorcist: The Beginning.

Although not the most technically advanced film I have seen, this was a fun and enjoyable couple of hours. The main characters are sweet and you really get to like them, and feel something when Susie Q. has to go, but feel good again when she returns as Maggie.<br /><br />Lots of stock dialogue, and a contrived plot-line, but most of all, LOTS OF FUN.

The only reason I watched the movie till the end was the 'hope' to see something interesting. The movie is really bad and the performance of the girl it is really, really bad, honestly, I am not a movie critic neither an expert but you just need common sense to notice that this work it is incredibly bad.<br /><br />The first thing that came to my mind as soon as she started to talk was: 'She has an affair with Willem Dafoe and he accepted to help her with the screenplay and appear in her movie since she is the brilliant director'... surprise, surprise, next day after I watched the film I found out on internet that Giada Colagrande is his wife. Awful story and terrible performance.

Fred Carpenter screened Eddie Monroe at Boston College, and judging from the enthusiastic response, he has much to be pleased about. A taught, well done Indy, impressive for it's big budget look and feel. This movie has it all: a tight script that grabs you and doesn't let go right up to it's surprise ending. This viewer didn't see it coming! Excellent performances all around. Craig Morris and Jessica Tsunis were were especially well cast in the leads, delivering strong performances. And kudos to Frank Bongiorno and Alex Corrado for creating two detectives as engaging and interesting to watch as any in film. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It confirmed my belief that some of the best work in film will be coming from the independents, and Fred Carpenter looks to be one of the best.

The French Babbette appears at the modest house of two Danish sisters wet, cold, and alone. Fleeing revolution in Paris, she seeks refuge in an obscure religious community on the windswept Jutland coast.<br /><br />Unbeknownst to those who so generously take her in, she is a great chef, an artist of food. Babette gives herself to her adopted community through thrift, productivity, and shared faith. She leaves only when she wins the French lottery--10,000 francs. She returns laden with exotic cargo, the makings of a single meal commemorating the birthday of the sister's father, the community's founder.<br /><br />This meal looms darkly in the minds of the pleasure-denying faithful but its subtleties are translated by an aging military officer who, as a young man in Paris, learned to appreciate the sensory experience unfolding here. The meal is the film's climax, a communion of love in the transitory artistry of food--unaffectedly uplifting about art, love, and the meaning of life.

As I am from Hungary I have heard many people saying better and better things about Üvegtigris so far, but actually I don't understand the reason of all the fuss.<br /><br />I liked many points of the movie, some of the quotes really cheered me up, but the stereotyped characters are present again, like in every Hungarian film, and the story is also pretty dull. I liked the first half, but then I started to get bored, and then I found the whole film just BORING.<br /><br />Rudolf Péter is good as always, Reviczky is brilliant also, but the others are just there... doing nothing.<br /><br />How many years still have to pass for a GOOD Hungarian film???