Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

'The Brotherhood of Satan' is a stupefying combination of conventional horror elements mixed with some imaginative characterization and direction (Bernard McEveety). It all starts out with father Charles Bateman (as Ben) driving out west with his pretty blondes: luscious Ahna Capri (as Nicky), and daughter Geri Reischl (as K.T.). Things get weirder and weirder for the trio, as they approach the town of Hillsboro, which is being gripped by a Satanic cult! <br /><br />When the dullish travelers hit Hillsboro, the 'action' switches to the film's more interesting assemblage of characters: townies L.Q. Jones (as Pete, the sheriff), Strother Martin (as Doc), Charles Robinson (as Jack, the priest), and Alvy Moore (as Tobey). Their interplay is sometimes fun. Soon enough, it all gets very silly, and predictable. Mr. Martin is the stand-out (as you might expect); he considers the possibility of a Satanic cult to be a 'cock-and-bull story', but is (of course) their leader. The 'Come in, Children' ending is puzzling; unless, perhaps, it was the film's original title.

Classic drama/action western with incredible cinematography that is well ahead of it's time(1954). The production is very good and you can tell that it was done with pride and love.Unique peek into the American NORTHT WEST pioneers is very educational and entertaining.This movie is very under rated because most people do not like to see the reality that many 'lawmen' during this particular time and place were very crooked/corrupt much like most developing countries today.The action sequences could have been more realistic though but still,this movie really covers most of the essentials.Not for an audience who wants only pure testoterone type westerns for this movie is more for those who have a sense of history and philosophy.......

I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those old 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!<br /><br />This movie was pretty poor. Though retitled 'Don't Look in the Attic,' the main admonition that is repeated in this is 'Don't go to the villa.' Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.<br /><br />The movie starts in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.<br /><br />From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a séance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is pretty poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately boring movie.<br /><br />There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads 'The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film.' In this case, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. I also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that.

I just realized why the colors and sets in 'Sakuran' were so flashy and gaudy, and just painful to look at. The story is about a high-class prostitute known as an oiran in Japanese. Their kimono were always flashier and gaudier than other kimono so that the oiran would stand out. But the director, Mika Ninagawa, had to make sure that the director stood out even more than the main character, or even the story. <br /><br />What Anna Tsuchiya did in the movie just gave me the creeps. You couldn't call it acting. It was nothing more than catering to her flipped-out, high-school-girl fan base. Hey Anna, good luck on that one as you get older. Yeah, right, an oiran as a crude and vulgar, prone- to-violence, biker chick. Didn't we already see you portray this character in a more appropriate movie?<br /><br />The story was painfully boring and predictable. What is the story of 'Sakuran'? An obnoxious little bitch ever remains true to her self which is just that: an obnoxious bitch. She finds that, inexplicably, men are attracted to her and that she has an unexplained ability to manipulate men and becomes a successful, high-class prostitute even though she talks and behaves like she's a member of a female biker gang. This so-called seductive ability of hers is talked about but we never see it in action, probably due to the ineptitude of the main, pretend-phony-biker chick, I mean 'actress.' <br /><br />The main character of the movie makes a wealthy and powerful man angry at her because she keeps him waiting while she services a much more lowly customer. Not very oiran-like, is it? How could such a woman ever become an oiran? Oh, because the previous oiran got herself killed and the house needed a whore that could demand a high price. Who would pay a high price for a slut so cheap? Rumors get around. How could there be no repercussions for what she did to the powerful guy? Because the screenwriters are dolts. They just made up a bunch of crap.<br /><br />Then an even more wealthy and powerful guy falls for her (why?) and she throws him over for a penniless guy who is generally cold and distant toward her but respects who she really is (which doesn't make sense. How can anyone respect someone so worthless?).<br /><br />Speaking of crap, it's like the director squatted down and took a huge, psychedelic-colored dump on the aesthetics, culture, and society of the Edo Period. What of such things as sabi, mono no aware, wabi, subtlety, elegance, a rigidly hierarchical society? All shat upon by a director who comes off as a senseless, nouveau-riche parvenu. The amazing thing is that so many other Japanese, in watching this movie, squatted down around the director and took steaming spoonfuls of this blazing-colored stinking crap and exclaimed how tasty it was.<br /><br />Argentinean tango music with violin and bandoneon as backdrop for the Edo Period when Japan was totally isolated from the international world (except for the 3.7 acres of Dejima)? Why not just have Anna, the bad-ass-biker oiran, answer her cell phone and the rich and powerful daimyo character drive off in a hissy fit in his red Ferrari? The music we had to listen to was jarring and anachronistic (the same as the art design). <br /><br />Near the ending, I liked that there were only two or three tiny flowers on the shrine cherry tree. But, earlier, the second she said she would leave the quarters when it bloomed, we all knew exactly what would happen. How boring, to telegraph the ending so clearly. But what's the point of the old tree blooming? That rich and powerful guy already made the pleasure quarters bloom in cherry blossoms like the mountains of Yoshino in spring. That didn't impress her at all? No, of course not. I already know that about whores. The guys that treat them nicely get kicked in the balls. Maybe it bugs the whores to have people idealize them when they themselves know the truth of who they are: just cheap and worthless.<br /><br />Considering the director's obsession with goldfish, the second to last scene should have been of a goldfish bowl on a verandah accidentally knocked over. Two fish tumble into a stream which carries them off to escape beyond the walls of the pleasure quarters, belying how goldfish are stuck in their bowl and can't survive outside (just like the denizen's relationship with the pleasure quarters). Otherwise the talk of the fate of goldfish has no meaning.<br /><br />In the final scene the cherry trees were full in bloom, but the brevity of the blooms is one thing special about cherry blossoms. I couldn't help thinking that soon enough dusk would wipe away all the soft pink color and warmth from the scene. The sky would go quickly from hints of shadow, into an ever- deepening gloom, and night would fall. It would become cold, very cold. And dark. That really wasn't a happy ending, was it? Romantic love (in the Edo Period?) could survive in the face of terrible poverty and being ostracized for about as long as those cherry trees bloomed. Maybe a few days, unless it rained sooner. But the unconsummated romantic love we see here? It's existence in this period is incomprehensible.<br /><br />Anna Tsuchiya walking in the shoes of an oiran? She couldn't do it. Literally. Check out the scene of her 'promenade' where she seems to have the correct footwear on but she has to hold on to some guy's shoulder to keep from tumbling on her ass.<br /><br />I was going to give this movie two stars for the art direction but then I realized what that was all about: sick dominance on the part of the director. Those colors and sets are just the way the director has of screaming, 'I'm the most important one here! Me! It's all about me!!!!'

this is the only movie i have ever walked out on. bad acting-- bad plot-- bad casting-- bad directing-- bad cinematography-- if they had set out to make a bad picture they couldn't have done a better job. i hope they are proud of his turkey. i'm surprised anyone associated with this film was ever hired again in hollywood. don't waste your time!

Oh dear - quite how Alfred Hitchcock (North by Northwest, Spellbound, the 39 Steps) could turn out this nasty, cheapjack shocker is beyond me. Don't bother looking for hidden depths or deep meanings - there aren't any. This is just horrid, seedy and cheap. The one redeeming feature is the home-life of the inspector who leads the investigation - his wife fancies herself as a gourmet cook and constantly serves up her revolting culinary experiments to her poor husband. This is amusing, and just about saved me putting the film in the 'awful' bracket, but the film as a whole is one of the most unpleasant I've ever seen. I believe this was Hitchcock's next-to-last film - perhaps someone was trying to tell him something.

<br /><br />As with the other episodes in this made-for-TV series expanding on the many adventures of the sea legend, Horatio Hornblower's super human infallibility ruins all chance for suspense.<br /><br />As little Wesley Crusher ruined many seasons of THE NEXT GENERATION, Horatio Hornblower invincibly saves every situation. Each and every clever solution inevitably comes only from the lips of Horatio Hornblower. Immeasurably superior, Hornblower's main trouble in this movie series seems to be tolerating the many error ridden characters above and below him in the chain of command. A perfect being makes for dull story telling. So superior is our hero, that even those who attempt to help him are powerless to do something correctly unless Hornblower is there to direct and control their every move.<br /><br />What is the sense in telling a story about any person who cannot do wrong and will repeatedly win at everything every single time? What is the point of watching such a story?

Just got out and cannot believe what a brilliant documentary this is. Rarely do you walk out of a movie theater in such awe and amazement. Lately movies have become so over hyped that the thrill of discovering something truly special and unique rarely happens. Amores Perros did this to me when it first came out and this movie is doing to me now. I didn't know a thing about this before going into it and what a surprise. If you hear the concept you might get the feeling that this is one of those touchy movies about an amazing triumph covered with over the top music and trying to have us fully convinced of what a great story it is telling but then not letting us in. Fortunetly this is not that movie. The people tell the story! This does such a good job of capturing every moment of their involvement while we enter their world and feel every second with them. There is so much beyond the climb that makes everything they go through so much more tense. Touching the Void was also a great doc about mountain climbing and showing the intensity in an engaging way but this film is much more of a human story. I just saw it today but I will go and say that this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen.

When I first saw Stella on comedy central I thought 'god, this is horrible!' But I loved Wet Hot American Summer. So I knew something didn't make sense. There was nothing left for me to do but search out for the Stella shorts which I had heard contained more dildos than any other comedy troupe out there. When I found them not only were my dildo expectations met, but I found probably the greatest comedy scenes I've seen in years. The set of twenty odd short films put me on the edge of my seat with water running down my legs. Not only did I laugh my ass off the first time I watched them but continued to laugh harder when I watched them over and over again. It's really a shame Comedy Central had the restrictions of cable television for the Stella series. It would have faired much better on HBO or Showtime. Their brand of humor can't be restricted by censors or popular culture. Given even if it was on HBO I'm sure the 'masses' would have voted it canceled in a season or less, but still it would have been fantastic. Needless to say I'm now in love with Stella and all it's individual members. Any Stella fan should check out David Wain's site with all his short films. They are equally as enjoyable as Stella itself. So my hat goes off to Michael Showalter, Michael Ian Black, and David Wain for the unbelievable comedy they have made with Stella. I hope to see much more of the troupe in the future.

A somewhat awkward spy mystery with a predictable plot about World War Two dangers. The mystery is whether or not Jane Graystone (Nancy Coleman) has amnesia. The best acting is done by Raymond Massey as Dr. Ingersoll, a good doctor turned evil. He is head of a spy ring attempting to get information from amnesiac Jane, coded information related to allied activities. Will she tell? Can she remember? Moroni Olson (as Mr. Goodwin) is convincing as an accomplice to Massey. The role played by John Garfield (as Dr. Lewis) is nothing short of disastrous. He seems so badly miscast that the casting has to be ranked as one of the worst in film history. It is unfortunate that so talented an actor is stuffed into a role which not befitting his talents. The movie is worth one look, despite being a half spy and half gangster film, and despite containing a parade of stereotyped characters. It's easy to forget this one, amnesia is not necessary.

After several extremely well ratings to the point of SUPERB, I was extremely pleased with the film. The film was dark, moving, the anger, the pain, the guilt and a very extremely convincing demon.<br /><br />I had initially expected to see many special effects, and like a lover's caress, it blew me away with the subtlety and the rightness of it. Brian, I am again blown away with your artistry with the telling of the story and your care of the special effects. You will go a long way, my friend. I will definitely be the president of your fan club.<br /><br />Eric Etebari, the best actor award, was the number one choice. You made Jr. Lopez look like a child compared to Kasadya. :) <br /><br />Overall, the acting, story line, the high quality filming and awesome effects, it was fantastic. I just wish it were longer. I am looking forward to The Dreamless with extremely high expectations.

I never really knew who Robert Wuhl was before seeing this. But after seeing it I realized what a funny man he is. This HBO special features him teaching 'American history' to New York university film students and the man was just phenomenal. He poked fun at almost every key historic event that occurred not just in the U.S. but some other parts of the world. This documentary/comedy was a great satire that made me question if what I accept as the infallible true history is really true.<br /><br />I enjoyed how Mr. Wuhl managed to mix useful information with great comedy and made learning a lot more exciting. I would recommend this to anyone interested in history and is willing to question what his/her beliefs.

This was the WORST Christmas movie I ever saw. I took my two small children to see this. It was the darkest, most dismal plot- family has no money, mom loses her job, father gets killed in the bank, bank robber steals family car with both kids in the back and after high speed chase, drives off the bridge and drowns them in the river. Mom is left all alone. No wonder her Christmas spririt is gone. Christmas angels do not rescue children that have drowned, and Santa does not bring back dead fathers! I thought this was the WORST message to send children. Better to tell them that there is NO Santa than show them a movie like this!!

The morbid Catholic writer Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) that is homosexual, alcoholic and has frequent visions of death is invited to give a lecture in the literature club of Vlissingen. While in the railway station in Amsterdam, he feels a non-corresponded attraction to a handsome man that embarks in another train. Gerard is introduced to the treasurer of the club and beautician Christine Halsslag (Renée Soutendijk), who is a wealthy widow that owns the beauty shop Sphinx, and they have one night stand. On the next morning, Gerard sees the picture of Christine's boyfriend Herman (Thom Hoffman) and he recognizes him as the man he saw in the train station. He suggests her to bring Herman to her house to spend a couple of days together, but with the secret intention of seducing the man. Christine travels to Köln to bring her boyfriend and Gerard stays alone in her house. He drinks whiskey and snoops her safe, finding three film reels with names of men; he decides to watch the footages and discover that Christine had married the three guys and all of them died in tragic accidents. Later Gerard believes Christine is a witch and question whether Herman or him will be her doomed fourth husband. <br /><br />The ambiguous 'The Vierde Man' is another magnificent feature of Paul Verhoeven in his Dutch phase. The story is supported by an excellent screenplay that uses Catholic symbols to build the tension associated to smart dialogs; magnificent performance of Jeroen Krabbé in the role of a disturbed alcoholic writer; and stunning cinematography. The inconclusive resolution is open to interpretation like in many European movies that explore the common sense and intelligence of the viewers. There are mediocre directors that use front nudity of men to promote their films; however, Paul Verhoeven uses the nudity of Gerard Reve as part of the plot and never aggressive or seeking out sensationalism. Last but not the least; the androgynous beauty of the sexy Renée Soutendijk perfectly fits to her role of a woman that attracts a gay writer. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'O 4o Homem' ('The 4th Man')

This is the fifth part of 'The Animatrix', a collection of animated short movies that tell us a little more about the world of 'The Matrix'. This time they introduce Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) in a story about a detective who is hired to find her. With great black and white animation and an interesting story this is again a great animated short from 'The Animatrix'.

is not a bad movie but the acting and the screenplay can be better. I like this movie because i have a life that is in good part like the one in the movie. is hard for a lost generation to get a life in Romania, and 90 percent of us choose something else, and that something else includes dealing with people with 'bad habits' if you understand me but that comes with the territory. this movie represent me and i like it. i have a rage in me that i barley talk with people, i live in a messed up society and i can't fit in and i don't want to,and that's the story of movie also, if you r like me you can understand the true movie, if not you will find it easy and cheap.

The movie Night Crossing captures the feelings experienced by the vast majority of East Germans during the period 1961-89. I lived in West Berlin during most of 1967 and travelled through The Wall into East Berlin on a weekly basis. Why? Excitement, crossing a border into a Soviet governed country, experiencing the smells and the feel of East Germany, which is why Night Crossing is excellent, it captures that very feeling, and it is exciting. I was arrested by the Vopos in Checkpoint Charlie and accosted by a man in his leather coat and dark glasses I am led to believe was Stasi. When I watch the movie I can smell cheap diesel and cooking oil, I can see the outdated vehicles, the drab clothing the public wore and the lacklustre produce in shop windows. It brings back memories of realising just how lucky I was to live in a free country. In 1988, I toured the DDR from East to West, North to South. East Germany had changed little since 1967. The Trabants, constantly breaking down, were still the main mode of private motorised transport, the shops still featured nothing much to tempt me, uniforms were still commonplace, but the people, the ordinary people were open and nice once you had gained their trust. Watch Night Crossing, it's as close to the truth as any movie you will see on divided Germany, even closer than two other favourites The Spy Who Came In From The Cold and Funeral In Berlin.

THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.<br /><br />And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does <br /><br />give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.<br /><br />Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.

Ulysses as a film should in no way be compared with the novel, for they are two entirely different entities. However, that being said, the film still manages to maintain many of the elements that made the book work, but since it is a visual medium, it is more difficult to pull of stream-of-consciousness. I think this is the best film they could have made with the material... and this is from someone that routinely rants about films not being like their literary counterparts. I recommend the book, but the movie is still entertaining.

Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.<br /><br />Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.<br /><br />The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.<br /><br />No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you.

This is an incredible film. I can't remember the last time I saw a Swedish movie this layered. It's funny, it's tragic, it's compelling, and most of all it's a slice of Swedish small town life. It crushes the clichés, and dwells deeper. It makes you feel connected, not only to the main characters, but to all the characters.<br /><br />Big city girl tracing back to her roots, her small hometown, to celebrate her father's 70th birthday, crossing paths with people she hasn't met in several years. Although the story itself isn't unique, it offers a fresh approach. The center of the story is the relationship between three sisters (on different stages in life), who aren't very close. Or at least don't realize how close they are.<br /><br />One key reason that makes it so easy to connect to the people in this film is the immaculate cast. First, I'm more than pleased about the fact that there are absolutely no so-called 'A-list' Swedish actors in this film. Usually there is a handful of actors that has the ability to find their way into almost every major production in Sweden. This time the production company managed to keep it real by casting actors who actually seem to love their profession. Sofia Helin is probably the first Swedish actress since Eva Röse to prove that you don't need words to convey an emotion.<br /><br />The writing is also very appealing. The dialogue is more than believable, and compared with other Swedish films from the past year or two, it's ahead by miles. Maria Blom controls everything from the beginning, and if you didn't know, you would never guess that this is her first time writing AND directing a feature length film. I can't wait for her next one.<br /><br />Once you start watching this, you really want to see it through.

Some Janapese modern horror movies are very good. Strong plot, scary moments, good acting, while others are just.... unfortunately, Uzumaki belongs to the latter camp.<br /><br />I will rate the movie based on 3 elements: Plot, Scary Factor, and Acting.<br /><br />1) Plot - true to the name the movie, the plot moves in circle and never really explains itself. OK, the town is captivated by the spiral curse, but why? And why do people act so foolishly? There is a fleeting attempt to explain about what is happening by the reporter.. unforutunately...<br /><br />2) Scary Factor - if this was meant to be a horror flick, it has failed miserably. I can't really remember one good scary scene with plenty of build-up to it. <br /><br />3) Acting - very monotonous. People walking around, saying meaningless phases. I can't really feel much empathy for our tragic heroes.<br /><br />All in all, there are much better modern Japanese horror movies out there with coherent plot and strong characterization. Don't bother wasting your time on this wannabe.

Jack Black and Kyle Gass team together to promote their band Tenacious D in this Rock Classic called Tenacious D In The Pick Of Destiny. Jack Black and Kyle Gass invent their own Rock Opera..it was like an Opera of Rock 'N' Roll. Some of the most twisted events took place in that movie....the big foot part....the mushroom part....and in the end when they did the rock off against the Devil. A classic formed in Tenacious D....one of the best films I have seen in a long time. The last couple things I saw in the theater were stupid..but this movie rocks. This really made me laugh hard. The whole basis is Jack Black runs of to find his rock partner in Los Angeles. His partner is Kyle Gass and man who has always been bald. They work together to find this magic pick that can make the most terrible musician play greatly. They finally make it to the Rock 'N' Roll Museum and steal the pick. On the way they meet The Stranger Played By Tim Robbins. They make it to the club to win their prize money when the owner grabs the pick and all along he was the devil and he battles the D in a Rock Off. The D doesn't win but the Devil's horn falls off sending him back to hell. Therefore LONG LIVE THE D!!!!!!!!!!

EL MAR is a tough, stark, utterly brilliant, brave work of cinematic art. Director Agustí Villaronga, with an adaptation by Antoni Aloy and Biel Mesquida of Blai Bonet's novel, has created a film that traces the profound effects of war on the minds of children and how that exposure wrecks havoc on adult lives. And though the focus is on war's heinous tattoo on children, the transference to like effects on soldiers and citizens of adult age is clear. This film becomes one of the finest anti-war documents without resorting to pamphleteering: the end result has far greater impact because of its inherent story following children's march toward adulthood.<br /><br />A small group of children are shown in the Spanish Civil War of Spain, threatened with blackouts and invasive nighttime slaughtering of citizens. Ramala (Nilo Mur), Tur (David Lozano), Julia (Sergi Moreno), and Francisca (Victoria Verger) witness the terror of the assassination of men, and the revenge that drives one of them to murder and suicide. These wide-eyed children become adults, carrying all of the psychic disease and trauma repressed in their minds.<br /><br />We then encounter the three who survive into adulthood where they are all confined to a tuberculosis sanitarium. Ramala (Roger Casamajor) has survived as a male prostitute, protected by his 'john' Morell (Juli Mira), and has kept his life style private. Tur (Bruno Bergonzini) has become a frail sexually repressed gay male whose cover is his commitment to Catholicism and the blur of delusional self-mutilation/crucifixion. Francisca (Antònia Torrens) has become a nun and serves the patients in the sanitarium. The three are re-joined by their environment in the sanitarium and slowly each reveals the scars of their childhood experiences with war. Tur longs for Ramala's love, Ramala longs to be free from his Morell, and Francisca must face her own internal needs covered by her white nun's habit.<br /><br />The setting of the sanitarium provides a graphic plane where the thin thread between life and death, between lust and love, and between devotion and destruction is played out. To detail more would destroy the impact of the film on the individual viewer, but suffice it to say that graphic sex and full nudity are involved (in some of the most stunningly raw footage yet captured on film) and the viewer should be prepared to witness every form of brutality imaginable. For this viewer these scenes are of utmost importance and Director Villaronga is to be applauded for his perseverance and bravery in making this story so intense. The actors, both as children and as adults, are splendid: Roger Cassamoor, Bruno Bergonzini and Antònia Torrens are especially fine in inordinately difficult roles. The cinematography by Jaime Peracaula and the haunting musical score by Javier Navarrete serve the director's vision. A tough film, this, but one highly recommended to those who are unafraid to face the horrors of war and its aftermath. In Spanish with English subtitles.<br /><br />Grady Harp

This is my first movie review on IMDb. I was forced to register after watching this movie. I cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. The people must be warned!<br /><br />First of all, my rating is: 0 (as in 'zero')<br /><br />I love Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Rachel Weis, and Christopher Walken, and yet, I hated this movie. There is a plot, but who cares when there's no script. The dialogue is unreal and plain boring, the situations are contrived, the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary, the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting, and the story, although based on a good premise, is stupid. This movie is a piece of poo.<br /><br />Never mind wasting MONEY on this movie, it's not even worth your TIME spent watching it. Please do not see it... I beg of you!

As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed.

Most war films made in the US during WWII were great fun to watch but suffered from severe gaps in realism because they were being produced more for propaganda value to raise the spirits at home than anything else. I am not knocking these films as many of them are still very watchable. However, because they so often lack realism they are prevented from being truly great films. A perfect example was the John Garfield film Air Force--in which a B-17 nearly single-handedly takes out half the Japanese air force! However, Pride Of The Marines is a welcome departure--scoring high marks for portraying a true story in a reasonably accurate manner. When I first saw this film, I thought it was NOT a true story as it seemed way too improbable to be true. However, after researching further I found that it was in fact rather true to the amazing story of two men who did so much to earn the Medal of Honor. This is one case where real life seemed too incredible to be true!

Love trap is a 'must see' independent film. When I sat down to watch the movie, I came in with low expectations, but left with a blessing. The story is poetic, substantive, and creative. The writer pulls you in further and further which each scene, allowing you to relate to the realistic characters that every one can identify with. The movie allowed me to reflect on my life and what I consider love to be. The movie displayed what love really is, action not emotion. I was also impressed with the quality of the cinematography and the soundtrack of the movie. The entire presentation surpassed my expectations. I give the movie two big thumbs up and recommend it to everyone of all ages and all backgrounds.

There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.<br /><br />I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful 'Showgirls,' which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.<br /><br />The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).<br /><br />The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.<br /><br />Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the 'Law and Order' series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on 'Lifetime.'<br /><br />Finally, I found a kind of 'story within a story' fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the 'victim' of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from 'F' to 'F-minus.'<br /><br />This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera. <br /><br />But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally 'resolved' and 'righted,' this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any 'real world' context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.<br /><br />This one's a 2* presentation; the second '*' because it does have some mild 'fascination.'

Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.<br /><br />Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.

Rather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I’ve recently acquired another adaptation of his work – COMA (1978) – in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) – a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.<br /><br />Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop – mainly because the narrative just isn’t very thrilling: in fact, it’s quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror – the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats – notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure – it’s actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country’s heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this ‘act of treason’ with his life.<br /><br />Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be – so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of “Frost/Nixon”, which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down’s antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure.

Can't say this wasn't made well. At a recent film festival the director admitted some scenes took 30 takes. And there isn't the slightest indication he didn't get exactly what he wanted. But this is an oddly non-Hispanic film in the same way West Side Story was many years ago. Both the leads, a brother-sister team, are excellent and memorable in their parts. The setting, a sort of underground car repair district in Queens, is completely foreign to most people and is worth the price of admission by itself. But there's something unsatisfying about the key issue in the film, namely, what the sister feels she has to do to get by. I can understand the brother's reaction, but it just seems a little too easily come by to me. The movie seems to suggest that people like these don't need our help, that they'll find a way to survive without the usual support systems. I wouldn't encourage anyone to believe that. There would be far more resistance to the choices made here than depicted. Other than that as an entertainment it works well. As an accurate depiction of a culture, not so well, I think.

A very, very, very slow-moving, aimless movie about a distressed, drifting young man. Not sure who was more lost - the flat characters or the audience, nearly half of whom walked out. <br /><br />Attempting artiness with black & white and clever camera angles, the movie disappointed - became even more ridiculous - as the acting was poor and the plot and lines almost non-existent. Very little music or anything to speak of. The best scene in the movie was when Gerardo is trying to find a song that keeps running through his head. He goes to a used record store to buy it for his lover and has to sing the song for two sales clerks before they find the album. Cute scene gave promise, but it went downhill from there. The rest of the movie lacks art, charm, meaning... If it's about emptiness, it works I guess because it's empty. Wasted two hours.

What really amazed me about this film was that it ringed so false. First of all, who in the late 80's (when the film takes place)lived like this family? A college professor wouldn't make enough money to support the lifestyle I saw on the film. Hence, he and his stay home wife would be plagued by financial woes, especially when she gets cancer. Second, Streep is my age, and most women, particularly in her class (educated, white, well off) experienced the feminist movement. Yet this woman seems oblivious to her anachronistic behavior. I actually felt that she was a very controlling woman who kept her husband an emotional child by taking care of his every need.<br /><br />The fact that so many people were moved by the film is amazing. I have admired Carl Franklin's films in the past, and I actually like Meryl Streep, but gad, what a manipulative and lying film this is.

WWE's last PPV of 2006, proved to be a hit with the fans, but for one reason only, the ladder match which was only scheduled to be Paul London and Brian Kendrick against William Regal and Dave Taylor. But with the recent crap PPV being December to Dismember, WWE knew that it had to do something to get the fans talking again, this proved useful when it introduced MNM and The Hardy Boyz to the mix and announced that the match was going to be a ladder match.<br /><br />The match was brutal and one of the best ladder matches I have ever seen, but Joey Mercury's face was a total mess. Johnny Nitro didn't even check on his partner, they just carried on like nothing happened, and Taylor and Regal did nothing during the match except hit people with a few ladder shots. In the end London and Kendrick retained the titles.<br /><br />Elsewhere on the show Kane defeated MVP in a decent inferno match when he set MVP's stupid costume on fire. Chris Benoit downed Chavo Guerrero in a decent match, Gregory Helms defeated Jimmy Wang Yang to retain the WWE Cruiserweight Title in a solid effort.<br /><br />But the main event was a total mess, King Booker teamed with Finlay to take on John Cena and Batista. The action was shoddy and no one cared who Batista picked for his partner.<br /><br />Overall Results: Kane defeated MVP in an inferno match.<br /><br />Paul London and Brian Kendrick retained the WWE Tag team titles against The Hardy Boyz, MNM and David Taylor and William Regal in a ladder match.<br /><br />Chris Benoit defeated Chavo Guerrero to retain the US title in a decent match.<br /><br />Gregory Helms defeated Jimmy Wang Yang to retain the Cruiserweight Championship.<br /><br />The Boogeyman beat The Miz in a terrible match.<br /><br />The Undertaker defeated Mr Kennedy in a last ride match.<br /><br />John Cena and Batista defeated King Booker and Finlay in an abysmal match.<br /><br />Overall Grade - B

It's nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from ****

No doubt about it, Rampling is gorgeous -- a classic beauty, here very young. She manages to appear simultaneously sophisticated and poignant. Her two male foils act well too. But seen in 2003, the flic is all<br /><br />American-trying-to-be-artsy-and-not-be-Hollywood-while-shooting-beautiful-sh ots-of-the-French-Riviera-and-three-pretty-young-people-in-their-cute-old-ca r. I enjoyed the view (both the actors and the nature) but the movie is boring and pretentious while trying to be the opposite.

I will give it this: it tried. It did try to make it good and even got Luke Wilson involved. Luke Wilson is good, but he can only do so much. He can't make up for the fact that the story was very flawed and the characters were underdeveloped.<br /><br />The running 'gag' with the bully was asinine. He was never funny and I got tired of the gag really fast. And the barefooted kid bit was kind of weak too. He hitchhiked to Florida? Yeah OK.<br /><br />The movie felt like an average kiddie film at times with this underlining mantra: adults stupid, kids smart. And that bit gets tiresome.<br /><br />But the only moments that were funny was the police cart Wilson drove around when he lost his squad car. I loved that little cart, especially when Wilson turned on the sirens. But, other than that, nothing else was worth my time. 'D-'

I thought that the storyline came into place very well. I liked this movie a lot. If you're going to rag on a Bridget Fonda movie, you can just rot. I thought that ragging on movie stars was a bad idea. Apparently somebody doesn't think so. I rather enjoyed the movie. I'm even thinking of buying it. I want it to be my very first DVD for my room. That's how much I like it. I rather would not start an online argument with someone I don't know & have it be over a movie. If someone could kindly retract what they said about the storyline, I would be more than happy to retract my insult. However, if they feel that I am not worthy of a retraction, I might just feel that they are not worthy of one either. But I can't control their actions, I can only encourage them in the right direction. Hey, they don't have to make a retraction, but I would greatly appreciate it.

This film is full of charming situations and healthy young people easy on the eyes, whether they are wearing clothes or not. The strong superstructure of its plot is upheld by the art of Shakespeare. As Joseph Papp discovered back in the 1950s in Central Park, Shakespeare's plots can be adapted to the manners and customs of the present. And, so the classic tales of cross-dressing and other mischief found in such lighthearted comedies such as Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night's Eve and As You Like It are used to good effect in this film. All the young actors and actresses do a good job of advancing the plot with their blocking and dialog and costumes. And the idea of a soccer game to bring things to a climax reminds me of Bend It Like Beckham, another charming coming of age movie.

I am very surprised to see such a high rating for this film, and of the few reviews that there are to be positive. I saw the movie and was pretty dissapointed. I didn't find it very enjoyable at all. It was slow, and lacks the entertainment value. Even the murder scenes are lackluster, with real close-up shots of generic stabbings that don't look good at all. And the supposed great twist ending is really not much, I did see it coming, and then the ending just seemed cliche. This movie may not get much mention, but by the little that it does get, it is overrated. I would not recommend this movie.

I got to say that Uma Thurman is the sexiest woman on the planet. this movie was uber cute and I mean uber cute. It had all the 'sex' content that most Ivan Reitman comedies have but with something a lil extra, CHEMISTRY. Uma and Luke both have this awkrawrd but believable chemistry that seem to transcend in each scene . Both seem to create this odd, twisted and interesting relationship with powerful 'sexual' tension that you laugh until you can't feel your face anymore. Anna Farris and the rest of the supporting cast seem to play off each other's roles perfectly and even Wanda Sykes' rather small role will keep you laughing. Though these kind of comedies aren't for everybody, but I have to say I went with a person that doesn't usually enjoy these films and he was laughing like crazy. This movie is certainly not for everyone. especially younger children since some moments are little too...well lets say ADULT for younger viewers. All in all I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, tough the ending I found was a little weak compared to the rest of the film. (3 1/2* out of 5*)

Mario is invited to Princess Peach's castle for cake. When Mario gets there, he finds out that Bowser has kidnapped her! Mario must save the day again. Unlike the 2-D games, Mario can explore anything he wants to. He can just roam around, climb trees trying to look for 1-Ups, find secrets in levels, and more. You can spend four hours in one level. No time limits. There are 16 worlds, with a number of stages, and there are star doors, which you need a certain number of stars to get into. Once you get in these star doors, you must go through a stage and fight Bowser at the end of the stage. To get to certain worlds, you need a number of stars to get in. You enter the world by going through a painting. There is so much stuff to do and so many hours of gameplay, I don't see how anyone could dislike this game. It's great. This launch title is the game that insured gamers that the N64 would have a good life. Every 3D plat-form game we know of has something in common with SM64. Banjo Kazooie and Banjo Tooie are examples that are commonly used. Super Mario 64 is one of the greatest games in the history of 3D games. 10 out of 10. If you have an N64, buy this game. It's hard to find used, because no one's selling this baby for 5 bucks at the pawn shop. A perfect 10.

Harmony Korrine - hate him or hate him? On this evidence, loathe might be a better word. Not him of course, just everything he does. But it could've been so different because the first ten minutes of this film promises so much including a fantastic idea of a Michael Jackson impersonator falling in love with a Marilyn Monroe impersonator. Fantastic. And set in Paris! This could be great. But unfortunately, Korrine may spark the odd decent idea but because he is an awful writer, the story fails on every level and the audience walkout I witnessed about an hour in is proof positive that he is the most boring and pretentious film-making out there. Apparently the walk-out rate at its premiere in last years Cannes festival was quite shocking. Instead of focusing on the two protagonists, he switches the story stupidly to the confines of a château to introduce a bunch of other impersonators making the whole experience tedious and narratively barren. When will the independent cinema stop funding this upstart?

Today I had a real craving for a sci-fi movie and so I decided to check out Battlespace. Sadly, that was one of my biggest mistakes this year.<br /><br />I see that the director, Neil Johnson, has directed over 500 music videos, and I suggest he goes back to that. Music videos are a perfectly good form of entertainment, and not everybody can cut it making movies.<br /><br />The worst part of this movie is probably the voice over. And that says a lot since the special effects are appalling at times. Voice over didn't work in Blade Runner, and it doesn't work here. The first hour or so is spent watching the main character walk through the desert, while her daughter tells the story. I think the story could have made a great movie, but not like this.<br /><br />The second worst part are the effects. They are simply bad and they don't blend into the rest of the picture at all, so you simply don't believe in them. And absolutely all the frames in the movie has been filtered, and not in a good way. Filtering used as an effect is good. 90 minutes of it, bad.<br /><br />And what is it with all the gadgets talking all the time, and not shutting up!?!? If I had used technology like that I would have gone mad. I was just waiting for the guns to blurt out with: 'I am awfully sorry, but I seem to have run out of ammunition.' No, stay away. This movie is just not worth the time.

Well, the first thing I saw after looking at the DVD box was 'Best Screenplay' and thought this would be a good rental. WOW, was I mistaken! I'm sure at one time there was a good movie in here, but after the incredibly poor acting and 'video game' production values, this ends up looking like Tron's retarded half-brother. The first scene sets up the overall atmosphere of the entire movie. Five minutes into it, you'll be asking yourself, 'What the Hell am i watching?', and it will just snowball from there. An awful soundtrack that makes every song sound like Rob Zombie's 'Dragula' rounds out this miserable piece of crap into a laughably bad movie. On a side note, #3 most romantic quote in a movie - 'I think you're the final destination.'

I was Stan in the movie 'Dreams Come True'. Stan was the friend that worked at the factory with the main character and ended getting his arm smashed in the machinery and got carried out screaming (where was the ambulance?) The acting in this movie was for the most part pretty poor with mostly local actors from the Fox Valley, Wisconsin. I saw the movie on the big screen. It played 2 nights in 3 theaters and was something special to see yourself on the big screen. I may be bias, but overall, I enjoyed it. Also the soundtrack was the band Spooner, who later became Garbage. My brother, Steve Charlton was also in the movie. He played Swenson the man who comes to the door on crutches to talk with the police.

A really funny story idea with good actors but it misses somehow. The actors are older but none of them looked particularly good. They needed better make up,photography or something.It is supposed to be a love story and yet the film had more of the rough look of a street film. I liked the cast but I think the performances were rather bland. This is where the weakness of the director shows. Perhaps if Mrs. Spielberg had Mr. Spielberg directing it would have been a much better film.

I happen to run into this movie one night so I decided to watch it! I was very pleased with the movie... I thought it was a wonderful plot. It's a great feeling knowing a deceased one has come back and you get that second chance to say what you want to say! And this wife stayed devoted for 23 years!!! I thought it was a great movie!!

I was so excited to see this film because I had always heard it was very scary.<br /><br />What's interesting about it is that it is a Japanese film they decided to bring to America, but they actually filmed it IN japan with the original crew! I think this made the film... more Japanese (which is probably why it managed to be fairly successful unlike most Japan-to-America horror movie flops) but it also made it a bit inaccessible to American audiences. The difference in what scares the Japanese culture and what scares the American culture felt present throughout the film. This worked well in moments when they meant to capture the nervous fear of the main character: a frightened fish in a big, busy, unfamiliar, Tokyo pond.<br /><br />The storyline was quite confusing as well. In typical Japanese fashion it is extremely complicated and confusing. The beginning of the movie is actually the middle of the story and from there we move constantly forwards and backwards until, at the end of the film, we see the ending and beginning of the whole story. This constant flipping through time was very much confusing for me. Also, I didn't think some things were explained so well and I had to ask my friend to explain them to me (she had already seen it, as well as the sequel which apparently reveals more of the story).<br /><br />Overall, there IS plenty for American audiences to love, tons of freaky imagery and macabre details which a healthy splash of jump scenes.

This is an extremely boring film. If you grew up during the Vietnam Was, as I did, then you've seen and heard all of the film footage and arguments here a hundred times by now. But what really makes this film boring is the narration by director Carlton Sherwood. The majority of the film is shot with Sherwood talking directly into the camera about his opinion of this conflicting time in the history of our nation.<br /><br />If you're old enough to remember Vietnam, then you won't find anything new here. There is no new evidence to condemn John Kerry or new evidence worthy of another documentary on Vietnam. Younger viewers who are interested in the subject should see George Butler's excellent film Going Upriver! Stolen Honor was clearly meant to be a hatchet job on John Kerry, but it fails miserably at accomplishing that goal.

This was Laurel and Hardy's last silent film for Roach Studios. However, since the public had a real thirst for 'talkies', this same short was re-made by the team just a few years later with only a few small plot changes. LAUGHING GRAVY was essentially the same plot except that Stan and Ollie were trying to hide a cute puppy from their grouchy landlord--not a goat like in ANGORA LOVE. This whole goat angle is the worst part of the film. While you could understand the boys wanting to keep a cute little dog (after all, it is snowy outside), why exactly they bring a goat home is just contrived and pointless. According to the plot, the goat followed them home and so they got tired of shooing it away and kept it. Huh?! This just doesn't make any sense--if it had been a giraffe or a cow, would they have done the same thing?! Apart from being an unconvincing plot, the movie itself is pure Laurel and Hardy, with a familiar plot and familiar roles for the comedians. This film features quite a few laughs, but unfortunately isn't one of their better films to wrap up their silent careers. This aspect of their careers just seems to have ended with a whimper.

This was the second of the series of 6 'classic Tarzan' movies featuring Johnny Weismuller in the title role and Maureen O'Sullivan as Jane.<br /><br />As usual, this was a wonderful film in this series; and perhaps stands out as an 'in between' film in a progression that could almost exemplify the development of cinema from the early 1930s into the 1940s. As such, it displayed good pace, though not as good as subsequent films. Likewise, the cinematography is less accomplished than later Tarzan films in this series. The stock I saw was of uneven quality, containing some grainy scenery and some under-exposed and over-exposed scenes. The crisp display of later Tarzan films is lacking here. On the other hand, there is one scene, very early on, in which the jerky movements of a camera with foliage swishing in front of it as the camera backs up, showing safari men forging ahead into the jungle, was really almost modern in its style, and stands in strong contrast to the stationary shots that make up the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Regarding plot, one interesting feature here was Jane's near-fickleness and inconstancy, when she was being subject to Martin's flirtations. The kiss – and Jane's stunned, and partly guilty, reaction – foreshadow something of the Jane we see in the future as well in these films. Compare, for example, in Tarzan Finds a Son! Jane's duplicitous actions tricking Tarzan and delivering Boy to his family. Later she admits to Tarzan that she was wrong. Here, nothing quite so explicit, but we have Jane 'returning' to the Jane Parker of yesteryear, and in an almost repentant series of actions, stripping herself of the evening gown brought by Martin and Harry to entice her away from Tarzan.<br /><br />There were a whole series of depictions and sequences that especially struck me in this viewing.<br /><br />For one thing, the picture we get of the domestic life of Tarzan is here, as later, a combination of sensual idyll with always the nearby possibility of violent death. This to me is very much at the core of the Tarzan experience.<br /><br />I was really surprised by some quite violent scenes even by today's standards.<br /><br />There were a whole series of scenes that gave me special pleasure: Tarzan leading the elephants into the Valley of the Elephants' Graveyard; Tarzan being rescued from watery death by the hippo, and then nursed to health by the apes; Cheetah going to find Tarzan when Jane and the other men are trapped at the foot of the escarpment; Cheetah in particular crossing the river on the log. The final battle scenes of savages & lions on the ground and savages & apes in the trees. Jane, showing us that she is truly of Tarzan's world now, quickly displaying her enterprising woodcraft to work up a line of fire to keep the lions away.<br /><br />The final series of scenes is splendid: suddenly Tarzan is on the scene, flinging savages from the trees and taking charge of the lions, and summoning the elephants to the rescue! That final cry of Tarzan in triumph, holding a happy Jane in his arms, with a dancing and delighted Cheetah beside them, is a memorably picture and really a fine summation of the story of Tarzan and Jane.<br /><br />All in all, this is another wonderful classic Tarzan movie. I would recommend this movie strongly to anyone.

I want to preface this review by saying that I have no idea what 'Begotten' is truly about. All I really know is that in the beginning God kills himself, in turn birthing Mother Earth, who proceeds to impregnate herself with God's semen. She then births a son. The rest is pretty subjective, and you have to interpret it in your own way.<br /><br />How I chose to interpret the film was this; God killing himself signified the start of the scientific revolution, when people started questioning the doctrines imposed by the church, like the geocentric view of the universe and etc. Mother Earth symbolized people starting to think for themselves and reject the church's 'it happens like this because God says so' views. The Tribal people were the church lashing back at them, trying to force Christianity down their throats. I'm not exactly sure how Son Of Earth fits into all of this. Mother Earth and the Tribal people seemed to be fighting over him, so maybe he represents the freedom of people or something to that effect.<br /><br />I have no idea what the final parts of this movie are supposed to mean. Bludgeoning, raping, then dismembering Mother Earth and Son Of Earth and grinding them into the ground like a mortar and pestle could mean anything, but that is where the fun of this film lies; You can interpret it any way you want. There doesn't have to be a definitive meaning to it, you can let your mind wander. Sometimes you don't even know what you are supposed to be looking at because it is shot in a weird angle or it is too fuzzy.<br /><br />The only thing that disappointed me was that I was expecting a truly terrifying film. I was going into it thinking I was going to get a phone call immediately afterward with a foreboding 'seven days' warning. What I got was pleasantly different. It was not scary at all, but it stirred my imagination. Trying to decipher the movie's cryptic message was a creative challenge. There were many scenes that were in fact beautiful. Mother Earth just after she was born and the final shot of the forest path come to mind.<br /><br />So overall I would have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It is certainly the most abstract movie I've ever seen, but that's not a bad thing.

This is an example of what film school lecturers would call a good debut movie. It follows all the rules. Short scenes, to the point, cheap to shoot, guerilla-film-making, no sets (just disused buildings) and possibly an empty hospital wing. Also, even the black&white film-stock was a stroke of genius, probably selected more for its low expense rather than film effect, but it worked.<br /><br />Reno was amazing as the Brute. Everyone's acting was brilliant. The plot was simple and effective and no flabby bits left to distract you. A tight, well-crafted, cost-effective budget movie.<br /><br />Released in 1983, this would've been made just before the art of big-budget action spectaculars became refined by the Hollywood movie-making engine, and movie-making was more exclusive and therefore more difficult and more in need of the right people in the right places than today's internet-enabled world, so Luc Besson would've had to do quite a bit of negotiating and promise-keeping to achieve this result, which makes the end-product all the more remarkable.<br /><br />But, then again, the French movie-industry has always maintained an excellent reputation (yes, I know Luc Besson is Belgian, but the movie is a French production) and has been the source of many Hollywood remakes.<br /><br />If I have one criticism, it's that the cover-picture on the DVD (and possibly the original sales poster) bears no resemblance to the movie whatsoever and appears to be a rather bizarre image rather than representative of any of the movie's themes - at first glance, it appears to be a man in post-apocalyptic armour on a swing, but on second inspection reveals a man in armour with a lance on an office chair with his legs on a desk in a reclined, self-confident posture. This never happens in the movie once.<br /><br />It's black-and-white film-stock, zero dialogue, physical acting, tight scenes and brilliant actors makes this movie one worth adding to your private movie collection. A superb movie.

I first saw this movie when I was a little kid and fell in love with it at once. The sets are breath taking and some of the script is damn right hilarious: 'You sons of a thousand fleas'.<br /><br />It is always shown on TV late at night or really early in the morning i woke up at about 3:00 am once and it had just started. TV companys need to show a little more respect and put it on prime time Sunday so everyone can get a chance to view this fine work.<br /><br />10/10

I read ashew's comment and thought they must have been watching an entirely different picture! <br /><br />I just watched the film this morning and was quite surprised.<br /><br />To address ashew's comments:<br /><br />Trail Street is a very well done western.<br /><br />And Randolph Scott was in it quite a bit! <br /><br />Gabby Hayes was funnier than I've ever seen him! <br /><br />The bad guys had very good comeuppances as far as I was concerned.<br /><br />Plus:<br /><br />It was interesting to see Robert Ryan as a straight-laced good guy - he's usually so slimy.<br /><br />In all, a good western, very well acted and written.<br /><br />I liked the background story of Kansas and the 'winter wheat' that supposedly helped it become a state, too.<br /><br />I thought the girl who played Susan was lovely - can't think why she didn't become a bigger star!

This movie lacked credibility for two reasons. One, no mayor of a major city, and New York is certainly as major as it gets. Would allow a borough in his city to degenerate into such a violent place to live; especially for voters who could have much to say about his or her future job security. All of the victims in the movie were mostly elderly, Jewish or defenseless. At 62-years of age, I have never seen a movie that depicted such utter lack of respect for authority as this movie did. Even 'Escape from New York,' which was fictional, up front, i.e. they told you that this was science fiction, didn't resort to such deep-seated violence. In this movie, most of the elderly victims were victimized and yet had guns but were unwilling to use them. Also, in this movie and I have not seen the prior two, is more lawless than the 'Escape' movie. Secondly, gangs as far as my research shows have never been as cooperative as this movie makes them out to be. On the one hand they catch a gang member from another gang working in their area and he's killed. Yet when the heroes start shooting at the local gang bangers, the next gang over is welcomed with open arms. Outside gang members are always viewed as outsiders and are stopped. We are supposed to believe that when automatic weapons are used against our gang, the other gangs want to be all into it. Why did the outside gangs come to help? I believe that more than one gang from outside came to help. What did they come for? Another question, why was the gang leader in jail and why do fellow jail inmates ask his permission to attack Bronson's character? This was not a great movie and I could go on, but I won't.

I don't think I could have enjoyed it more, though certain things were disturbing. I'm not going to say what, if you haven't seen it...you'll have to find out for yourself. At any rate, what movie can lack with Robert Downey Jr.'s puppy-dog eyes? All-in-all, the plot was developed sufficiently. Nothing seemed too rushed, as movies like this tend to be. The characters were like-able, and there were plenty of hilarious scenes in it. The idea over-all is that the story is very well tied together, even if certain aspects may be unsatisfactory...by matter of opinion. But like I said before, it's hard not to love any movie with Robert Downey Jr.

As a fan of the book, this work is fantastically adapted; remaining true to the source materials, and demonstrating an honest respect for the literary work. The intrigues translate well to film by virtue of Ron Howard's good eye for detail and sound devotion to authenticity.<br /><br />I like Hanks as Robert Langdon. His portrayal is genuine and earthy, with only the barest glint of the Kip we all knew and loved, back in 'the day.' He is a good dramatic actor and, while I miss his comedic efforts, I do enjoy his more serious performances.<br /><br />The subject matter is no less controversial than the DaVinci Code, and the Vatican seems to never learn their lesson. As with the aforementioned film, the Holy See issued a scathing rebuke and called for a global Catholic boycott of the film, which of course, generated millions in ticket sales.<br /><br />Although the story of the 'God Particle' was played down dramatically, and the science was written out of this piece of science fiction, the fiction that was left, was entertaining and extremely well done. And, the truth be known, people who have not read the book, will not notice any missing or lesser element to the story, as the screen version carries the main story well on its own.<br /><br />In fact, it is not necessary to have seen the first installment of this franchise, in order to enjoy this second, which should have been a prequel in all honesty, although that does not lessen the effectiveness, nor does it meddle with the continuity or flow of this second work.<br /><br />All in all, this is good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing, although the execution may be a bit rough for the small ones.<br /><br />It rates an 8.8/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

This film got less attention than 'League of Their Own,' possibly because it has only one 'name' star. But whereas women's professional baseball had only an eight year, Midwestern town existence, Japanese baseball is a vastly bigger entity, both in financial underwriting and popular support. That alone would make it the better movie.<br /><br />'Mr. Baseball' shows the facts of life of Japan-ball: the regimented cheering, the deference to umpires, the pressure of corporate owners on managers, the extreme conservatism of play - and no hot dog players welcome.<br /><br />It also touches upon the isolation that any gai-jin - but especially an American jock, not the people most versed in foreign cultures - feels living in Dai Nippon. And the Japanese, for their part, are not comfortable around foreigners and let it show in various ways ('the gai-jin strike zone,' one American player complains, 'bigger than a Buick.')<br /><br />The script may not have won any awards, playing once again on the 'redemption by improved play' theme, but I found it considerably more enjoyable to watch than the pokey 'League.' Definitely recommended for those who want to see another angle on this great sport.

How many times must I write the words boring and not funny on this page until I get to ten lines. George is about original an actor as Alfalfa from the little Rascals. Although that is probably a slight to Alfalfa. How many times do I have sneak into these overpaid actors crappy films before I will learn that there is but one law in the movie industry. Take the money and make a movie - even if it is crap. They spend millions making this movie but can't take a few moments to watch the end result. And Renee GoAwayZigger should stop taking the illegal drugs she is on and seek medical help for the facial problems she is sporting. At least I hope its drugs as she is quite unattractive whilst talking out the side of her mouth. This movie was neither funny nor dramatic and these hacks should just stop making crap like this. George and Renee, you should be ashamed of yourselves and stop being stop stinking greedy.

Every movie I have PPV'd because Leonard Maltin praised it to the skies has blown chunks! Every single one! When will I ever learn?<br /><br />Evie is a raving Old Bag who thinks nothing of saying she's dying of breast cancer to get her way! Laura is an insufferable Medusa filled with The Holy Spirit (and her hubby's protégé)! Caught between these harpies is Medusa's dumb-as-a-rock boy who has been pressed into weed-pulling servitude by The Old Bag!<br /><br />As I said, when will I ever learn?<br /><br />I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise when The Old Bag stuck her head in a sink, but, unfortunately, she did not die. I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise again when Medusa got mowed down, but, unfortunately, she did not die. It should be a capital offense to torture audiences like this!<br /><br />Without Harry Potter to kick him around, Rupert Grint is just a pair of big blue eyes that practically bulge out of its sockets. Julie Walters's scenery-chewing (especially the scene when she 'plays' God) is even more shameless than her character.<br /><br />At least this Harold bangs some bimbo instead of Maude. For that, I am truly grateful. And if you're reading this Mr. Maltin, you owe me $3.99!

We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.<br /><br />Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole.

I decided to watch this show and give it a go but I found it to be boring, and more importantly dull.....Dull.<br /><br />There is far too much sarcasm and the characters are all dull, there is far too much talking and the character Lorelai...just keeps talking on and on and on.... During a second glance felt like suffocating the characters, the banter doesn't work and the whole love and romance thing just ruins what is already a crap show....I can't believe this show survived past the pilot.... This seems to be a show which forces the 'Listen to your parents' line....No actual drama exists....<br /><br />Should have stayed a pilot.....and a pilot alone...

Great 'documentary' of how scientist's believed dinosaurs behaved, captured with some of the most spectacular CGI since 'Jurassic Park'. Done completely seriously, like a prehistoric episode of 'Nation Geographic'. Grabs your attention from the first frame and never lets go. My favorite part was when the Diplodocus fights off the Allosauros.<br /><br />10 stars. This is what science is all about.

I actually retired from Asian horror films some time ago after becoming completely sick of seeing samey ghost story rubbish. However, I've been getting more and more into exploitation flicks recently, and so decided to give them another chance. My first port of call was highly rated director Takashi Miike's highly rated 'Visitor Q'. I'd already seen Audition, and while I didn't like it much, I do rate it as one of the better modern Asian horror films. So, I went into this with sensible expectations; and unfortunately, found only boredom. I suppose this movie is actually really clever and it just went over my head, but what it seemed like to me was simply a collection of violent and nasty scenes with little or no coherency between them. Any comparisons to the work of Luis Bunuel and David Lynch is blasphemous as far as I'm concerned; all Miike has done here is make a film; any intelligence surrounding it has been implemented by pretentious fans, desperate to find some kind of meaning. My headache set in about 10 minutes in (after a father had sex with his daughter for some reason), and it didn't subside until the movie finally ended; at least twenty four hours later, or so it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against violence in movies and in fact actively seek out the most notorious films around; but while this may be violent, it's also pointless and boring and I didn't get one ounce of enjoyment out of it. Takashi Miike may have a lot of fans, but I'm certainly not one of them; and I certainly hope this is the last time I'll come into contact with one of his films.

Nothing is worse than the genocides of our world's history. This film attempts to describe the horror faced by one particular family - a common narrative device - in the atomic bomb world of Hiroshima. The most memorable parts are the graphic and saddening images that the people of Hiroshima face in the aftermath of war. The story, however, becomes more concerned with the effect on a specific group of people and how they cope with getting on with their lives; in other words, if you don't really care about them, the film grows boring. It's hard not to care, though, when a family's homeland is wrecked. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, because it says very little politically and, honestly, did not keep my interest in the family's troubles.

Takashi Miike is one of my favorite directors and I was worried about him doing a kids film, because I would hate to see him depart from his films I came to love: Visitor Q, Gozu, Izo, Ichi the killer and Black Socioty Trilogy. Lately he seems to be exploring new territory and I think he's succeeding. Still this was the first of his films I'd seen him take that direction, so I was nervous. Of coarse I bought it without seeing it and was glad I did.<br /><br />Great Yokai War is a perfect kids film and adults should like it too. The whole film reminded me so much of the movies I loved as a child: Neverending story, Labyrinth, Return to Oz, etc. I enjoyed those films because they didn't treat kids like they're stupid and this one doesn't either. The dark underlying morals are there, but, it's also as silly as any kids film should be. I personally wasn't bothered by the CGI and prosthetics. I feel like they fit well and don't think kids will notice.<br /><br />If you are a die hard Takashi Miike fan, you may not like this one. But, I suggest giving it a shot. It proves that Miike is as diverse and talented as I suspected he is. He also continues to make his signature Miike films outside of these ones, which is very reassuring.<br /><br />To those people that are new to Takashi Miike and want something light hearted or dramatic like this one, I suggest these other Miike films: 'Zebraman' 'The Happiness of the Katakuris' 'Sabu' and 'The Bird People in China.' <br /><br />Good job Takashi Miike! 8/10 stars.

One of the more satisfying Western all'italiana, Johnny Yuma has the freshness of many WAI made during the heyday of the genre and is highly recommended for fans of the genre or offbeat, intelligent cinema.<br /><br />Johnny Yuma is, in most respects, not terribly original, but this actually does not count against it. The success of a genre film depends on how well it meets the audience's expectations as well as provides surprising variations on these expected elements. Earlier, pleasing experiences are recreated but with subtle (or major) twist that provide continuing interest. The quality of the execution is also, obviously, important. A tired retread will be less successful than a sincere attempt to entertain or move the audience.<br /><br />Given these criteria, Johnny Yuma succeeds. There are numerous reprises of elements from earlier films. The setting is the brutal, twisted semi-feudal twilight world of shared by many of the best 'Gothic family' westerns made 1964-1968 such as Tempo di massacre (1966). The plot is a combination of the basic Fistful of Dollars (1964) plot and the Ringo films, a fact not surprising as screenwriter Fendiando di Leo was involved in both. Di Leo was one of the best screenwriters in the popular cinema coming out of Cinecitta in the 1960s-70s and his work helped provide much of the thematic continuities and coherency to the genre (Along with a couple of other personalities in a few distinct circles of actors, directors, and screenwriters). In the FOD plot, the protagonist arrives in town, stirs up a tense situation, then undergoes a near-death followed by a resurrection (in some films, like Quella sporca storia nel west (1968) it is quite literally a crucifixion). The Catholic undertone to the narrative and the symbolism is intriguing, especially given the implicit populist/explicit socialist leanings of the filmmakers and their films. The Ringo plot, developed more fully by screenwriter Ernesto Gastaldi in a series of films starring Guliano Gemma, a egoistic protagonist chooses the interest of a community over his own through the medium of a relationship with a member of that community (with a healthy dash ironic uncertainty).<br /><br />The relationship between Carradine and Johnny is clearly based on that of Manco/Mortimer from a Fistful of Dollar (1965). The two scene of the exchange of the gun belts provides a clever dialog and understanding between the two. Numerous films, including Da uomo a uomo (1968) or even El Chuncho, quién sabe? (1967), use this relationship between an older and younger man (father/son, older/younger brother, Anglo adviser/adversary and peasant revolutionary) as a central dynamic to the plot.<br /><br />Additionally, there is the focus on deception and misdirection, mazes and mirrors, that recur throughout the best early WAI. The canons and pueblos of Almeria become literal mazes through which protagonist and antagonist play shifting games of cat and mouse.<br /><br />What distinguishes Johnny Yuma from other WAI is the quality of director Romolo Guerriri's use of visual/psychological space together arrangement with the script's intelligent mechanisms to forward the plot. Dialogue was never very important to the WAI and often absurdly unintelligible (thought there are exceptions, such as the cynical commentaries in Django (1966) or Faccia a faccia (1967).<br /><br />Psychological depth of character is created almost entirely through iconic imagery, it's juxtapositions, and it's description of the overall narrative situation. See how the presence of the deadly Samantha is felt during the beating scene – watching from the roof or from the background of the action. Or how Johnny strips Samantha and Pedro of their security and confidence in their power through his stealthy invasions of their ranch, hotel, even bedroom (this, again, is a theme from FOD). Finally, note how there is a focus on the search for information. Like many elements, this is borrowed from FOD which was ultimately based on the hard-boiled mystery novel Red Harvest. It is through incidental contacts, wanted posters, overheard conversations, glances out of windows, watches left in the dust, or mistaken identities and movements through the ripples created by the actions of Pedro and Samantha within this surreal and absurd reality that the narrative tacks forward to it's conclusion.<br /><br />The movie was notable in it's time for what were perceived of as excesses in violence. Of course, these films were hardly more violent than many American westerns. What was different was the psychological intensity of the violence and the causes to which it was attributed, which is to say that it was not the violence but it's meaning that had changed. Johnny Yuma is distinct and interesting in it's use and portrayal of violence and this is another interesting aspect of the film.<br /><br />What I personally find most interesting about most of this genre is the link it provides to the anonymous, nameless audiences in Italy and Spain to whom these recurrent narratives held some significance and interest. The artifact may have no intrinsic worth in and of itself – some flint debitage from a prehistoric site, a shard of cruse pottery, or a moldering piece of leather and rusted metal – but it is reference to some nameless presence, lives, that were significant simply because they existed. While Johnny Yuma has intrinsic worth, much of it's interest for me derives from this connection and mystery.<br /><br />Top spaghetti western list http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849907<br /><br />Average SWs http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849889<br /><br />For fanatics only (bottom of the barrel) http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21849890

I did not like the pretentious and overrated Apocalypse Now. Probably my favorite Vietnam War film is The Deer Hunter. The Deer Hunter focused on one part of the war, and then focused on the lives before the war. This movie is essentially Deer Hunter 2. The script is too loose compared to the Deer Hunter. The story is never developed to the point that the audience can truly understand and feel for the characters like the Deerhunter did. The Vietnam flashbacks are not as gripping or involved as the ones in the Deerhunter. This is why I can only give this movie 7 out of 10.<br /><br />However, I think that the acting was outstanding. DeNiro and Harris are truly amazing actors. They totally immersed themselves in their characters and expressed the great anguish of two former friends who lost their best friend Bobby in combat. Harris' character is a half-dead alcoholic, who hides the guilt that he has in Bobby losing his life trying to save his.<br /><br />I also like the supporting cast. Everyone in the town is part of the movie. The town obviously can't handle Vietnam vets very well. Like many small towns, it is all about being quiet, humble, and minding one's business. Harris' character, however, can't be any of these things. It is interesting how wars effect people. Some people rebound quickly, while others never really recover.

Firstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.

Brokedown Palace is truly a one of a kind. It's an amazing story, showing two girl's plight for freedom against the Thailand justice system. They soon find themselves placing faith into a system they know nothing about.<br /><br />Alice Morano (Claire Danes) and Darlene Davis (Kate Beckinsale), are two best friends, strait out of high school. They suddenly change their vacation plans from Hawaii to Thailand, and are immediately captivated by a young man, Nick Parks. He flirts with them both, and suggests that the three of them go to Hong Kong for the weekend.<br /><br />When the two arrive at the airport, they are immediately searched for drugs. Someone tipped off customs, and in an instant, their life is changed forever. In the mix of the confusion of settling into their new life, they learn about a highly respected lawyer, named Hank Green (Bill Pullman).<br /><br />An American who knows the Thai justice system, he fights for the girl to be free. But they soon find out, when they leave or go is all up to them.<br /><br />If you're looking for a great movie that'll stay with you for years - Brokedown Palace is definitely the way to go.

CHANCES ARE is a charming romantic fantasy about a woman (Cybill Shepherd) whose husband (Christopher McDonald) is killed shortly after learning she is pregnant. We then see the husband in heaven letting the powers that be know that he was taken too soon and that his wife needs him. He is told he can return to earth but not as himself. Flashforward 19 years where we see Shepherd's daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson) preparing to graduate from college and encountering a young man (Robert Downey Jr.)who, it turns out is the reincarnation of her father. The film is a little on the predictable side...the story goes all the places you expect it to, but it is so charmingly played by an energetic cast (especially Shepherd and Downey) that you can't help but get wrapped up in the fun. Shepherd has rarely been seen on screen to better advantage and she and Downey are backed by a talented group of character actors in supporting roles. A lovely and charming fantasy that will engulf and enchant you.

dear god where do i begin. this is bar none the best movie i've ever seen. the camera angles are great but in my opinion the acting was the best. why the script writers for this movie aren't writing big budget films i will never understand. another is the cast. it is great. this is the best ted raimi film out there for sure. i know some of you out there are probably thinking 'no way he has plenty better' but no your wrong. raptor island is a work of art. i hope it should have goten best movie of the year instead of that crappy movie Crash with a bunch of no names AND no raptors. i believe this movie is truly the most wonderful thing EVER.

The Great Caruso displays the unique talents of Mario Lanza. He shows great acting capacity and is in top form as a lyrical singer, paired with Dorothy Kirsten, soprano of the Metropolitan Opera. Indeed, I dare to say that he performs some songs better than Caruso (check A'Vuchella from Tosti and La Danza from Rossini). The MGM art and music departments also did a good job. This movie could be perfect, were it not for the awkward presence of Ann Blyth; we see that she is trying her best, dressed in the fifties style in scenes just before 1920 - unforgivable. Lanza deserved a better leading lady, and Blyth should stick to less demanding productions. Also notice that Ms. Kirsten sings most of the opera duets of the film with Lanza, giving the wrong notion that Caruso had a kind of permanent leading soprano.

'Thunderbolt' is probably Jackie Chan's worst movie since 'The Protector' in 1985. Yes, I know that nobody watches his movies for their stories, but the plotting of this one is unusually lame, even by his standards, and while the fight choreography IS up to his standards, the fight scenes (the whole two of them) are ruined, as others have mentioned, by the frenetic, distracting camerawork. Even the most serious Jackie Chan fans shouldn't really bother with this offensively haphazard, stunt-and-plug-filled garbage. Anita Yuen's cute and perky performance is one of the few redeeming virtues. For a good 'serious Jackie' movie, I recommend 'Crime Story'. (*1/2)

I consider this movie a masterpiece, but it took me at least 4 o 5 times to see it, so as to realize what a great movie it was. First, it describes a face of WW2 that we don't usually see in Hollywood movies. In particular, German soldiers, army and the Nazi government are shown more 'humanized'. One of the facts that impressed me most was the mention, by the end of the movie, of a murder that took place in a forest in the last 20's... that forest is the place where the final chapters of Berlin Alexanderplatz take place: those are the woods where Reinhold kills Mieze. Another clue for those who like the details, is the representation of doors. Fassbinder is obsessed with the changes in people each time they walk across a door, or a door is opened. Many doors are shown in the screen, opened and closed. And the characters change in their personality, their acts, etc any time that happens. Have you noticed that?

I just got it and it is a great movie!! i loved it! Although Jane Brightons voice n the beginning is so annoying because of her braces she don't open her freaking mouth...but ya have to watch it cause its a great movie!! the things he says in here are so funny and extremely cute!! and I'm sure Aaron would probably say some of the things in real life cause i don't know, it just seems that way!! ha ha there is a part in tha movie that is really funny...its wen Jane's little sister meets him...but i cant tell ya what happens cause ill just have to let u see for your self!! i went to go see Aaron n concert and it was so much fun!! n he smelled so good ha ha...i still cant believe i got to meet him!!! i have pictures if anyone wants to see them!! Steph

One of the best films I have seen in the past five years! The cast is universally spectacular in a tale of young love and bravado on the Lower East Side of New York City with the two leads being superstars in the making. Funny, charming, sad and inspiring, this is a totally refreshing take on urban youth that puts Larry Clark's often-nauseating shtick in the gutter where it belongs... although I have to admit that Bully was a cut above his normal fare. Raising Victor Vargas is one film you will kick yourself for missing... so don't miss it!

Pepe Le Pew can either really creep you out or totally sweep you off your feet. Either way, you can't help feeling a little awe on beholding this classic WB character. This commentater personally believes that Pepe was the inspiration behind other would be animated casanovas today from Cartoon Network's 'Johnny Bravo' to Disney's Lumiere from 'Beauty and the Beast'. <br /><br />His unique brand of love making is to be wondered at in today's world where his antics would normally be slapped with a sexual harassment warrant and at least a 50m distance from all his victims. <br /><br />In this particular cartoon, a world weary cat decides to do an ultimate makeover and earn some respect for a change for pretending to be a skunk. All goes well, until Pepe arrives and promptly pursues the unfortunate feline with his overwhelmingly enthusiastic love-making.<br /><br />The groundwork for Pepe's many trademarks are laid in this cartoon. From his adorable 'frenchified' love calls to that aggravatingly calm hop-chase of his. <br /><br />This cartoon only goes to show that as far as the world of cartoon fantasy is concerned, the most ardent wooer can go the distance...and have his beloved 'pig-eon' leaving dust trails behind them.

Steve Carell plays Dan Burns, newspaper agony uncle and dedicated single father to three girls. At a large family homecoming Dan meets his perfect woman, only to find out that she is in a relationship with his brother.<br /><br />What's a man to do?<br /><br />I rather liked 'Dan In Real Life', but I would imagine the success or otherwise of this flick is going to be down to whether you are willing to accept Steve Carell playing a part relatively straight and restrained, rather than going through the broad comedy moves that have made him so successful. If you cannot accept it, fear not, 'Get Smart' will be along later in the year, but for the record I thought he was very good.<br /><br />'Dan In Real Life' starts off like your typical, incidentally amusing, family drama, but it gets funnier and funnier as it goes along and Carell's frustration with his situation grows. It's not massively original (but if you only saw movies with original ideas, cinematic pickings would be very scarce indeed, wouldn't they?), but 'Dan In Real Life' is entertaining, and a good cast (who wouldn't fall in love at first sight with the luminous Juliette Binoche?) make the most of an insightful enough script that contains many a ponder on the meaning and passion of love.<br /><br />I hope that Steve Carell pushes himself and does something as interesting again.

Looking back on Jim Henson's works years after his death is like taking a look back into another time. For unlike most so-called creative types attempting to sell to, or worse yet cynically exploit, children nowadays, Jim never seemed to really forget what it was like to be a child. And if there ever was a moment in which he demonstrated this, Labyrinth aside, it is 1979's Muppet Movie. Filmed as an allegorical story about how Henson came to work in children's television as a puppeteer and ended up with a half-hour show of his own on primetime television, The Muppet Movie ends up an affirmation of everything more progressive, understanding sorts would say to children who did not quite meet the expected norm during the 1980s. And as we enjoy the fruits of an era in which we are gagged and bound from speaking about anything lest someone might get offended, the open celebration of difference or diversity that formed a large part of The Muppet Show is on offer here. I have said it in other comments, but I must say it here. A great light in the world went out the day Jim Henson died.<br /><br />The Muppet Movie begins with its cast sitting down to see the premiere of what were about to see for the next eighty or so minutes. In short, precise strokes, we are introduced to the major players as well as some of the minors. And when the story proper begins, boy are we given a great song to bring us into the moment. The Rainbow Connection painted both a beautiful and sad image of what the Muppets, especially Kermit, were. These were not just a bunch of felt puppets with singular personalities who combined to put on a show. They were living things based upon a part of all of us, only writ so much more boldly than we are used to. As each Muppet was introduced to us in turn, we saw another reflection of part of ourselves, and of course the children in the audience would respond differently to each character. Hence, everyone had a favourite. When Animal appeared behind a drum kit and attempted to eat a cymbal, I knew I had found one of mine. Nowadays, I am more of a Swedish Chef fan, but what the hey.<br /><br />Complementing the characters was a string of musical numbers that further developed their motivations and personalities. Can You Picture That? shared an insight into Dr. Teeth and his band as well as the creative soul of Henson. But the most relevant song to me was Gonzo's number, asking what he is and where he came from. Many of us would spend a lifetime gazing into the stars and, like Gonzo, saying we knew we would be going back there someday. Not that all the songs were so deadly serious, of course. Fozzy and Kermit share a number after they decide to combine their talent (or lack thereof) and hit the road. If any evidence were required that present-day 'musicians' have lost the ability to use the pop structure to create something listenable, this number would be it. Never before, and never again, would the group dynamic of a cast and the music so perfectly complement one another. With the puppeteers and voice actors so perfectly on top of their game, the human cast had a lot to live up to.<br /><br />Which makes it all the more amazing that the human element also lived up to their end of the deal. Cameos literally pepper the film, with everyone from Steve Martin to Telly Savalas popping in to offer their support. Even Richard Pryor, the last man one would expect to see in a film about the Muppets, appears to set up a hilarious moment. Mel Brooks' cameo is just as disturbing to me as an adult as it was when I was a small boy, but I suspect that is because Henson knew why I would find it disturbing now. The big acting strength, though, comes from Charles Durning, who as Doc Hopper embodies everything both Henson and his audience determined to resist. At every junction, Hopper comes to either offer Kermit the chance to sell out and betray his own kind. Or perhaps offer stops being the right word when Hopper's attempts to ensure Kermit's compliance become progressively more forceful and violent. The whole thing is one big metaphor for how every artist has his heart broken by the world.<br /><br />Of course, Animal also shows up to remind us that just because our friends are not sweet and cuddly does not make them any less of a friend. In point of fact, Animal turns out to be the best friend that Kermit has in that moment. And that has been the core message of every good show or film Henson has been involved in ever since. That shunning or dismissing others simply because of linguistic or cosmetic differences could literally be the worst mistake one ever makes. There can be little doubt that in today's world where a moron in a purple suit can tell my sons they are not good if they do not have good feelings for fifteen seasons and still not come under serious investigation by child welfare authorities, Henson's creature workshop could never have got off the ground. To misquote the album title, daring to be stupid is one thing, but enforcing the choice upon others is another matter. The Muppet Movie demonstrates how Henson dared to ask us all to think, both inside and outside of the proverbial box. There will never be another entirely like him, but he never would want us to stop trying.<br /><br />Therefore, The Muppet Movie is the epitome of a ten out of ten film. If we were to send a film out into the cosmos to prove to intelligent life that we are worth more than being obliterated, this would be it.

I'm a pretty tolerable guy, when it comes to movies, even B movies. I routinely watch some B movies for fun, and they can range from surprisingly good, to just downright awful. I usually set my expectations really low before watching these types of movies, and even after doing that, Descent was just downright awful. I really didn't mind that they were ripping off the Core to some extent, but they did absolutely nothing interesting with the material. Some scientists are worried about the earth's seismic activity, and must travel into the depths of the earth in order to stabilize the mantel. So what we get is a monotonously long set-up in which two dueling scientists played by Luke Perry and Rick Roberts have to work together on a top secret mission, named Project DEEP. The man in charge, General Fielding played by Michael Dorn, is secretly withholding vital information from Assistant Marsha Crawford, played by Mimi Kuzyk. Rounding out the cast is Natalie Brown who plays Jen, a mission specialist who created the 'Mole' a drill which is used plunge into the depths of the Earth.<br /><br />Other than some pretty good special effects, and set designs, nothing about Descent is worthwhile. The movie starts out fairly entertaining, but it gets bogged down quickly in a tiresome story about uncontrollable seismic activity, which has been done to death in other movies such as the Core. Descent also has a poor script, with useless, forgettable dialog between the characters. To make matters worse, there is literally no action, no real threat or danger. The attempts at comic relief are painfully unfunny. The plot has gaping holes and some of the subplots are left untied at the end leaving a bad taste in your mouth. <br /><br />In closing this movie was just a cheap way for everyone involved to get a paycheck. There was no thought behind this movie, no innovation, it's just there. Other than some nice looking special effects, and set designs, this movie fails on every other level. The story is from the garbage can of Hollywood, and the characters are uninteresting to boot. Descent will simply descend you into boredom, and frustration. Avoid at all costs.

Charming in every way, this film is perfect if you're in the mood to feel good. If you love jazz music, it is a must see. If you enjoy seeing loveable characters that make you smile, can bring a tear to your eye and swing like there's no tomorrow this film is for you. If you are looking for an intense, deep, heavy piece of art to be dissected and analyzed perhaps you best stick with something by Darren Aronofsky (in other words - reviewer djjohn lighten up, don't you know a good time when you see one!) My only complaint is that the movie was just too darn short. I guess I'll just have to watch it several more times to get my fill.

Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that – not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there…

I'm shocked that all the 'hated it' ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of 'the emperor has no clothes'. I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less.

A few weeks ago the German broadcaster 'SAT1' advertised this movie as the 'TV-Event of the year' - sorry, but I've seen better things on TV this year.<br /><br />I didn't thought much of the movie but I soon reminisced about two other horrible movies when I watched the commercial - namely Titanic and Pearl Harbor because the picture looked so familiar: The 'heroine' (if I can really call her that) in the middle and her two 'loved-ones' next to her - Pearl Harbor, anyone? In fact the love-story is a poor man's version of the one in Pearl Harbor and that one was already poor!<br /><br />But as I like watching movies and analyzing their patterns I eventually decided to watch that rubbish. The movie begins with a doctor leaving his family for the military strike against Russia near the end of the Third Reich promising his wife that he will return. Now fast forward to Spring 1948: Germany lost the war and the allies & Russia captured the country and they both try to eliminate each other for world power and their ideologies: capitalism versus communism. Well, I guess you already know the story because you have to know it - The movie doesn't really bother with it so much and literally takes a dump on historical facts. The movie tries to depict the US government as angels and completely ignores the contribution of other countries during the airlift especially Great Britain who was responsible for nearly a quarter of the rations despite having their country bombed from a country that they're trying to help.<br /><br />What was also pretty annoying were the historical remarks the people said in the movie like when the heroine's mother tells her daughter that Germany might be parted in two with a response like: 'That's impossible!' Or when Stalin (where the director thought we just stick similarly looking mustache on the actor and he WILL look like him) says that Russia has to stop 'Coca Cola' from spreading in Germany. Yeah right, if Stalin has ever said something like this. Or there is this one US pilot who tells his fellow of a bread with meat and everything possible in it - please! Burgers were invented WAY before that time.<br /><br />In the movie you once see a map showing the airlines, funnily enough the map looks like it came straight out of a laser printer - in '48. The US general Lucius Clay who's main idea was to stay in Berlin is portrayed as a guy who is mean and grumpy and all the ideas he historically had like for example the airlift and improving on that idea came from the fictive character Phillip Turner, the love interest of the main actress which leads me to other aspects: Not enough African-American soldiers in the movie, there were like two in the whole film! Also relationships between US soldiers and German civilians was not allowed and by a revealing of such a relationship the US soldier would've been sent home. I don't want to say that there were no relationships at all but in this movie there was a couple that almost got married, If it wasn't for the death of the pilot in his fake CGI plane which looked terribly unrealistic especially the CGI fire!<br /><br />If it wasn't enough all Americans in this movie spoke accent-free German although they only were in Germany for a couple of months - look I'm also American living in Germany for my whole life and even I have a little accent. Notably bad was also the child acting - the kids had like two expressions on their faces: 'Normal-I-look-monotonous-like-a-robot' and grinning.<br /><br />All in all the movie was boring from beginning to end moving way too slow especially the love story which was the same as the one in Pearl Harbor just with half of the dialogue. The sad part is that the movie was very successful - 8.97 millions watched the first part and 7.83 millions the second part the day after thus SAT1 receiving two consecutive wins in the overall market share and a whopping win in the commercial relevant group. But like I always think: The biggest pile of bull-crap is where the most flies go to.

I remember Casper comic books, but don't remember any cartoons. Maybe they weren't memorable; I don't know but at my advanced age, here I am watching this very early Casper animated short yesterday. Afterward, I was shocked to read the user-comments here. Did people miss the ending?<br /><br />I have to learn all over again that Casper isn't like the other ghosts, who like to go out each night and scare the c--p out of everyone. 'He sees no future in that,' according to the narrator here. Instead, one night he goes out to the rural section of town, inadvertently scares some animals and can't find any friends. It brings him to tears, until a little fox hears him bawling and befriends him. The two become buddies but soon, the fox is running for his life with a fox hunt in progress.<br /><br />Other reviews have all mentioned what happens, so I'll touch on that, too. The fox is killed by hunting dogs (not shown) and Casper is in tears for losing 'the only friend I ever had.' But, nobody mentions the happy ending to this story. 'Ferdie' the fox becomes a spirit-figure like Casper, jumps on his lap, licks his face and the narrator comments 'they lived happily ever after.' Both characters look overjoyed.<br /><br />What is so sad about that? This is a nice story with a nice, happy ending.

An especially delightful film to those of us who saw this when young because after all it was meant for the young to watch - when viewing it again as an adult it's better if rose-tinted spectacles can kick in. It was the first of the 16 Jungle Jim films and later TV series chunky Johnny Weismuller went on to do for Columbia (in the last 3 films he had to use his own name though as they'd lost the rights) after getting the sack from playing Tarzan for Sol Lesser. Johnny Sheffield also gave up playing Boy to become Bomba the Jungle Boy in a series of 12 films.<br /><br />Jim and party go on perilous safari to hunt down the hidden temple of Zimbalu manned by an obscure tribe of devil doctors who seem to have the secret of a poison that might also be a cure for polio. Edgar Rice Burroughs probably approved. After 16 years talking monosyllabically Weismuller seemed awkward stringing sentences together, not that it mattered. On the swift march we meet many of the interesting but generally playful denizens of the jungle, barring the sinister crocodile going to eat the leading lady with her leg caught under a twig and the surreal elephant stampede (stock footage squeezed into a corner of the frame). Skipper the dog and Caw-Caw the crow had many adventures, none of which turned out essential to the plot in case you were concentrating! The biggest problem with the film is the farcical climax, which can be exciting but also unfortunately remind you of the end of a serial part – and the original excellent serial had been made 12 years prior. Although personally I wouldn't have minded this going on another couple of hours as well!<br /><br />The only thing heavy about this was Weismuller; in so many ways an enjoyable kids film from the old days - not recommended for serious adults so I love it.

I'm disappointed at the lack of posts on this surprising and effective little film. Jordi Mollà, probably best known for his role as Diego in Ted Demme's 'Blow' Writes, directs, and stars.<br /><br />I won't give away any plot points, as the movie (at least for me) was very exciting having not known anything about it.. If you have a netflix account, or have access to a video store that would carry it...I highly recommend it. It's a crazy, fun, and sometimes very thought provoking creation.<br /><br />Mollà's direction is *quite* impressive and shows a lot of promise.<br /><br />Unpredictable, with amazing imagery and a great lead performance spoken in beautiful Spanish 'No somos nadie' (God is on Air) is an amazing film you can show off to your friends.<br /><br />SEE IT.

'Intervention' has helped me with my own addictions and recovery. I'm a middle-aged married father of two. I'm quite functional in my personal and professional life. Still, I have pain from my past that I use addictions to soothe, and issues from which I am slowly recovering. When these addicts and their families share their lives with me, they help me to improve my life and my relationship with my family.<br /><br />The show, unlike many others, digs into the past of the addict and reveals events that probably caused their addiction. Many of us suffer because it's too scary to go back and do, as Alice Miller says, 'the discovery and emotional acceptance of the truth in the individual and unique history of our childhood.' The show deserves a lot of credit for at least getting this process started. This digging is painful and difficult, but worth it. So much coverage of addiction -- fictional and non-fictional -- seems to ignore the underlying issues. Often it's assumed that the addict just one day started to shoot up or whatever for fun or pleasure or self-interest, and now they can't stop. Not so: addictions are about killing pain. I can relate to the different events and hardships in people's lives. There are common themes, and surprising exceptions. Many addicts have suffered miserable abuse. Some kids simply respond badly to divorce. To those who think that addiction is an over-reaction to a hardship, I would just say that different people respond differently. Although some kids handle divorce well, others, like Cristy in the show, 'collapse in a heap on the floor' and have their lives forever changed by the event.<br /><br />For example, last night's counselor said that pretty young Andrea seeks validation from men. She strips for cash for a 75-year old neighbor and lets men abuse her. Sound familiar to anyone? The series is filled with information that we can use to understand our own motivations and make adjustments to our lives. Often it's those of us with smaller issues who suffer the longest. As they say, even a stopped watch is right twice a day, but a slow watch can go undetected for quite a while, until it's made your life miserable.<br /><br />To the producers: Thank you for making the show, for digging into the past, for the follow-ups. Also, the graphics, the format, and the theme music are brilliant.<br /><br />To the addicts: thank you for your courage to share. Whether or not you have helped yourself, you have helped me.

The frustrating thing about a movie like this, with a true potential for greatness, is that it almost enjoys being heavy-handed. We speak of allegory, of metaphor...but the truth is, there's no getting around the fact that there is absolutely no plot or real character.<br /><br />At a certain point, we most know who the people are...even if we never understand where they are going. The sheer pretentiousness wore me down every time I tried to grasp a truth in this film.<br /><br />Call it beautiful, great and awesome...I just call it 'cheating.' All style and no substance. Sure, it's a matter of taste...but I would never take a confusing modernist pastiche of symbols and splashes over the spiritual clarity of Jean Cocteau or Renoir. But if it works for you, I'm all for it. Art is a personal thing, I guess.

The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68. <br /><br />Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...<br /><br />…To rob a bank!<br /><br />Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!<br /><br />The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score…? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles<br /><br />To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.<br /><br />The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass<br /><br />Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.<br /><br />My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.<br /><br />I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.

I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.<br /><br />The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it.

I think you would have to be from the USA to get a lot of the jokes. But if you liked Princess Bride and Forest Gump, You would like this movie. You can't compare the quality of the filming to those of course, but having the cameraman trip was obviously done on purpose. Killer Tomatoes is a hundred times better than Nepolean Dynamite. Just my opinion. I'm sure that people from France would not appreciate the caricatures of the French. So this film isn't for a world audience. And while I am not a trained film critic, I know what I like. I couldn't stop laughing through the whole movie. My sides and my jaws were hurting at the end of the movie.

This is a really old fashion charming movie. The locations are great and the situation is one of those old time Preston sturgess movies. Fi you want to watch a movie that doesn't demand much other then to sit back and relax then this is it. The acting is good, and I really liked Michael Rispoli. He was in Rounders, too. And While You Were Sleeping. The rest of the cast is fun. It's just what happens when two people about to get married meet the one that they really love on the weekend that they are planning their own weddings. I know... sounds kooky... but it is. And that's what makes it fun to watch. It will make your girl friend either hug you or leave you, but at least you'll know.

(spoilers?)<br /><br />while the historical accuracy might be questionable... (and with the mass appeal of the inaccurate LOTR.. such things are more easily excused now) I liked the art ness of it. Though not really an art house film. It does provide a little emotionally charged scenes from time to time. <br /><br />I have two complaints. 1. It's too short. and 2. The voice you hear whispering from time to time is not explained.<br /><br />8/10<br /><br />Quality: 10/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 5/10

The 74th Oscars was a very good one. Whoopi's work as EmCee was very funny, and light. I personally loved her last apperance, which garnered some frigid reviews due to coarse language and salacious jokes, but that's fine. The audience seemed to like it. Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Ron Howard, Woody Allen, and Sidney Poitier made this an Oscar telecast to remember.<br /><br />

Wow. Just wow. Never before have i seen a horror movie in which it seemed like a bad self insert fanfic that somebody wrote one day in 20 minutes. And then i happened to come upon 'Lady Frankenstein'. This movie takes everything you know about Frankenstein and turns it completely upside down... and not in a good way. If you've seen this movie you either stumbled across it on Italian TV, or you have the dubbed version on the 50 Chilling Classics Box set like i have, as number 24. And lets just say there's a reason why these movies are here. Because they're not very good. enough of that though, onto the movie.<br /><br />It starts out with Dr. Frankenstein trying to make the monster with his assistant who's....obviously not igor for some reason. His college graduate daughter (?) shows up and states how she just graduated with a medical degree, cause yeah. there were so many female doctors back then. So she states how she wants to help her father with his work and he says no. And then he makes the monster and it kills him. So she grieves for exactly 7 seconds and then makes up a story with the assistant how it was a burglar. The monster escapes and goes on a rampage. <br /><br />OK, i really can't believe they killed Dr. Frankenstein so early in the movie. he dies like...20 minutes in. and then his daughter takes over. which.... doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but sure. <br /><br />So Lady frankenstein decides the best way to kill the monster who's now rampaging....is to make ANOTHER monster! oh yes how i love her logic. so her new monster she gets the body by killing someone and putting the brain of the assistant in it...i know. just nod and go along with it. So the monsters meet and duke it out. I love how the assistant asks 'why don't we just let the mobs kill it?' and she answers with 'They wouldn't know how to kill it!' and in the end he kills it with an axe to the head. haha. oh yeah, nobody ELSE could have figured THAT one out. so in the end the brain switched new monster kills lady frankenstein. The End.<br /><br />This movie was just....weird. it was seriously like somebody wrote a self insert fanfic. There's no other way to describe this movie. there were some odd naked scenes too. like, this girl was having naked sex in the park with her boyfriend, the monster picks up the girl and the guy drives away. haha. nice guy. She then struggles a bit and dies from.....to be quite honest, i really don't know what she died from. But whatever. It's Lady Frankenstein. It doesn't have to make sense. <br /><br />This movie had a lot of those 'Why?' moments to the point that i just gave up. Movies shouldn't do that, but for some reason i see that more than i probably should. <br /><br />So final word, it's not the worst movie i've seen on this pack, but it's a tad boring, and full of many many holes and random things. <br /><br />So Lady Frankenstein gets 3 Frankenstein porn scenes, out of 10