Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.<br /><br />Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.<br /><br />The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.<br /><br />Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?<br /><br />This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.

'Ruby in Paradise' is a beautiful, coming-of-age story about a young woman, Ruby Lee Gissing, escaping her stifling roots to become herself. Although the title character is played artfully by the gorgeous Ashley Judd -- in likely her first movie role, albeit one to be quite proud of -- the emphasis is not upon becoming 'somebody,' a la the next Madonna (whether Jesus' mother or the lurid, attention-hungry singer).<br /><br />It instead emphasizes following ones' instincts and being somewhat introspective about them, to grow into one's ideal, adult self. NOTE: This isn't an action movie!!! It uses an occasional voice-over narration (by Ms. Judd) while writing in her journal -- and oh, I see I've just lost the male half of the readers out there. But be patient with this beautiful movie, where we learn that one's bliss can be discovered in -- oh, I dunno, carrying water and chopping wood.<br /><br />Actor/director/writer Todd Field, who played Nick Nightingale in 'Eyes Wide Shut,' co-stars as Ruby Lee's noble love interest, one who helps her heal her idea of relationships implanted from youth.<br /><br />But not even his character is the answer for Ruby Lee: There's no external hero imposed upon her. The ultimate message is that we are responsible for ourselves. Writer/director Victor Nunez, who also wrote/directed 'Ulee's Gold,' did an amazing job showing a young woman growing into herself -- confronting age-old challenges of good v. evil along the way.<br /><br />The supporting cast is also stellar, and the music used, particularly the cuts by chanteuse Sam Phillips (whom I hear is the wife of T. Bone Burnett), is right on -- most especially 'Trying to Hold on to the Earth.' Now, when I hear the first few chords of that song, tears spring to my eyes, Pavlovian and unbidden -- not sure if it's the music, or the indelible connection to the movie's quiet, charming message of empowerment.<br /><br />This movie is highly recommended for any young person trying to find his/her way. For any woman of any age, it is a must see! The downside: It is NOT on DVD, except in Spanish. (We learned, however, that it is legal to make one copy of a VHS version, which can be readily found online. My beloved husband found someone with a VHS copy and got a DVD copy made for me.) Although this treasure of a movie occasionally pops up on-air – on an indie channel, usually – you can't count on that when you might need it most as a tonic to soothe the pressures of the world. So buy a copy for yourself.<br /><br />This movie should have a major re-release, and it would, if I were Queen of Hollywood.<br /><br />-- Figgy Jones

How does an usual day start in Point Place, Wisconsin...<br /><br />First of all, Red, the tyrannical father of the Forman family and a WWII veteran, sits at the kitchen table and reads his newspaper while his overjoyed wife Kitty serves breakfast. Then comes their skinny son, Eric, he sits at the table as well, and his father starts his daily yelling, usually involving placing his foot in Eric's behind if (insert reason here). If his promiscuous angel-faced sister Laurie is at home, she comes along, then Red stops yelling and kindly talks to her, making Eric feel left out of the family.<br /><br />Once this daily (painful) ritual is over, Eric rushes down to his basement, where all his friends are already hanging out. And when we get to see them, it becomes obvious Eric and his redhead tomboy girlfriend, next-door neighbor and childhood friend Donna Pinciotti are the sanest people around. Meet Steven Hyde, the conspiracy theorist who hates disco and doesn't really care about what's around as long as it's not funny to watch; Michael Kelso, the kind of guy who thinks that he will get through his life only by his looks and that carrots grow in trees; Jackie Burkhardt, the one who thinks of herself as the prettiest girl around, spoiled kid of a rich father, and, of course, cheerleader; and Fez, a naive but oversexed foreigner who loves candy and can't keep a secret. At first they simply hang out, gossiping and making fun of Kelso, but then they all sit in a circle and let the real fun begin... before going out doing something they'll regret later.<br /><br />Meanwhile Red goes out and meets Donna's weirdo parents, Bob and Midge. He's rude, but they don't mind, as they think he's joking. Somewhere around is Leo, an aging hippie, who's constantly confused and makes word plays without even noticing.<br /><br />Did you imagine that seemingly peaceful neighborhood with all these awesome characters? Of course, most seem 'clichéd', but the show takes the cliché to a new level. Now throw in some of the most wicked story lines a sitcom can offer, sit down and enjoy one of the best TV shows ever. The one that never does two times the same thing and which is, compared to most sitcoms that are 'cute funny', purely hysterical. If you get hooked, don't let this show let you go. Bite on the hook over and over and, man, you will see the sitcom genre from a whole new prospective.

I have been an avid Jane Austen fan for many years. I had never seen this adaptation, so when I had heard of it, I came here and read all the excellent reviews. On that basis I eagerly ordered it from Netflix. What a cruel disappointment! They have taken one of the most subtle and bright comic novels and made it dull. Each character seems to have been dealt a single facial expression, a single tone upon which to base their flat characters. Although this adaptation seems to have used every word that Jane Austen wrote, they appear to have been passed around to characters in a random fashion. Even though it was done as a miniseries, this adaptation manages to confuse and feel as rushed as if it had been done as a movie of the week.<br /><br />Mr. Bennett too harsh, Mrs. Bennet just a chattering chipmunk, Mr. Darcy as lifeless as a nutcracker, the Bennett girls almost indistinguishable and Mr. Wickham a man who no one would look twice at - hardly the appealing cad! I'm quite put out!

I would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system.

After an undercover mission in Bucharest to disclose an international gang of weapon dealers, the agent Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) is assigned to protect the Romanian Nadia Kaminski (Silvia Colloca), the widow of an accountant of the Romanian Mafia. However, the CIA safe house is broken in by the criminals, and Sonni realizes that the information was leaked from inside the Agency. Alone, trusting only in his friend Michael Shepard (William Hope), Sonni fights to survive and protect Nadia.<br /><br />The career of Wesley Snipes is downhill. I have just seen this flick, and it is another disappointing movie of this actor, whose career is presently very similar to Steven Segal's one. The movie has many explosions, shots and car chase associated to an awful story and horrible acting. First, the Afro-American Wesley Snipes is chased by the police of Bucharest, but they never find a black American man. I have never been in Romania, but I believe there are not many Afro-Americans in this country. His character does not like to bath, wearing the same clothes along many days. There is no chemistry between Sonni and the sexy Silvia Colloca, but she freely has sex, falls in love for him and shares her fortune with him. The boy that performs Nadia's son is horrible. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'O Detonador' ('The Detonator')

I still can't describe what to feel when I received this by the fnac site. Such a rare movie, so little spoken and known, is difficult to find, even to fans, but the contrast betwen past and present is devastating: now I hold a DVD of the movie, with the finest quality possible. As I did in Atlantis, the other rare Besson movie I bought by the internet, I saw this one at home, with all the lights of my dvd and tv turned off, and marveled at the experience. I didn't know what to expect. Wickedly, I always searched some kind of disappointment when I saw a film by Luc Besson I never had seen before. But it never came. This movie was no exception. From the start, I understood that the person who makes a film like this as a first feature is destined to be big in the future. And so it happened. This won several prizes (including the highest prize in a film festival of my country, which makes me proud) and it shows that this movie is preparating many bigger things. This may be the most original after-the-war movie I have ever seen, beating Mad Max in originality and artistic feel. There is not a problem with this movie: its cinematography is genius, as well the perfomances of the actors. I am also proud to say that finally I saw all the movies of my favorite director, and have a copy of almost all of them (Joan of Arc is still waiting for me to buy the DVD). This movie is most of all a work of style and dedication, which makes clear why Luc Besson is a director of my choice: good taste, beautiful framing, excellent use of music (I also marveled at Eric Serra's first feature-length score) and the promise of great achievements. Gaumont did well to bet in its boy-genius, the man who would later change the face of France's and Europe's relation between movies and their public. Let's hope Besson starts working in a new directorial project. I will be the first to cheer it. Until then, I recommend this movie to anyone who need to learn a lesson of how good movies are made with little money. I loved the atmosphere of the movie, which, by its black and white cinematography, suggests us an even more depressed view of the world after the holocaust. This movie works by the sheer magic of movies: showing in pictures what we can't explain by words. And I'm with all the people who wrote comments to this movie and liked it: good choice! A great hug to everyone who sees this and feels that a little of their lives were changed.

Maverick director Seijun Suzuki finally was able to film his dream project, 'Princess Raccoon' and in a way it's lucky he didn't try this in the 1960's. Special effects and computer graphics certain made this sort of production easier to achieve than the old film matte technology would have.<br /><br />Some familiarity with Japanese history and theatrical traditions will help with the enjoyment of this film. Much as familiarity with Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' would help with Peter Greenaway's dense 'Prospero's Books'. These two films actually have a bit in common although, 'Princess Raccoon' is much more colorful and easier to watch for someone without the background to fully appreciate it.<br /><br />While the art design, acting and direction are fine for most of the film, it seems to this viewer that the energy runs out in the last third of the film. Most of the interesting sets have been already been introduced and the camera seems to step back for more of a filmed stage play experience.<br /><br />This is certainly a unique film experience and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in alternate forms of film performance. It's not really meant for children although nothing happens that would upset them. If the last third was better I would have given it nine stars.

How can anyone DARE say anything BAD about this film? Pardon Mel Brooks for being a brilliant comedian and making a movie that gets funnier each time you watch it.<br /><br />The first time I saw this, I cried from laughing so hard. Everything about it is funny.<br /><br />While 'Robin Hood: Men In Tights' is not my favorite comedy (that spot is taken by 'Real Genius'), it ranks way up there in my book. So go see it! If you don't spend the whole time laughing, then at least you'll spend the whole time drooling over Cary Elwes.

There have been many film and TV productions of Jane Eyre each with aspects to recommend them, but I suspect this is the one that people will still be discovering and falling in love with decades from now. It's just a classic (and offers much more of the story than others do). Timothy Dalton is utterly in his element as Rochester, rarely missing the mark; his performance is astonishingly nimble and many-colored, while never straying too far from the dark complexities of the character. Zelah Clarke's Jane is more cerebral than otherworldly, but she makes a perfect foil for Dalton (who, appropriately, towers over her!) The nuances of her performance come through better on a second viewing (once you've absorbed the shock of Dalton's charisma). There are some technical faults and a couple of moments where the production values could have been better; though this pretty much was a top-of-the-line production by the BBC's standards of that time. But, it's the performances that are the real pleasure. Don't miss this one!

***SPOILERS*** Seething with hatred and revenge half breed Zach Provo, James Coburn, had spent the last 11 years on a chain gang planing his escape. What Provo want's more then freedom is to even the score with the man who captured him and in the process, during a wild shootout, killed his Navajo wife: The former Pima County sheriff Sam Burgade, Charlton Heston.<br /><br />Making his escape after killing two prison guards Provo makes his way towards Yuma knowing that that's not just where Burgade lives but where his his young daughter Susan, Barbara Hershey,resides as well. Using his fellow escaped convicts to lure Burgade into the vast Arizona Desert, by promising them $30,000.00 in gold coins that he buried there, Provo plans to exact his bloody vengeance on Burgade. But only after having him witness his daughter being brutally raped by his fellow convicts or are, in not being with a woman for years, as horny as a rabbit during mating season!<br /><br />Brutal and very effective western that updates the John Wayne 1956 classic 'The Searchers' in a father searching through dangerous Indian territory for his kidnapped daughter. Charlton Heston as the guilt-ridden Sam Burgade in his felling somehow responsible for killing Provo's wife and then having to face the fact that the same thing can very well happen to his daughter Susan is perfect in the role of the aging and retired sheriff. Charles Coburn as the vengeful half breed Zach Provo is also at his best as the obsessed with hatred and murder escaped convict.<br /><br />The man who escaped with Provo are really not interest in his personal affairs but have no choice, in that he knows the territory like the back of his hand, but to go along with him. It's only the thought of them having their way with Susan, when Provo gives them the green light, as well as the buried $30,000.00 in gold coins that keeps them from breaking up and going their own way.<br /><br />Also going along with Burgade is Susan's boyfriend Hal Brickman, Chris Mitchum, who proves in the end that he's as good as Burgade is, who felt that he just didn't have it in him, in both tracking down the escaped criminals as well as using common sense, which in this case Burgade lacks, in doing it.<br /><br />***SPOILERS**** The unbelievably brutal and blood splattered showdown between Burgade and Provo is almost too much to sit through. Provo who's hatred of Burgade bordered on out right insanity wanted him to suffer a slow and excruciating death. it was that hatred that Bugrade took advantage of and, after taking some half dozen bullets, thus ended up putting the crazed and blood thirsty, as well as mindless, lunatic away for good!

There are several things wrong with this movie- Brenda Song's character being one of them. I do not believe that the girl is a lousy actor- I honestly don't. I believe she is given poor lines. She is just supposed to be, 'that vain, rich girl', and while it is funny in the TV shows she plays in, it can't even get a dry laugh from me here.<br /><br />Either way, I really should have known what to expect when I sat down to watch this film.<br /><br />The movie was not that terrible...initially. Wendy's reaction to Shen was completely natural. I mean, how would you feel if a man, claiming to be a reincarnated monk, chased you around commanding you to wear a medallion and insisting that you were needed to fight 'the great evil' and save the world? Which brings me to another point. I know this movie is entirely fiction, but it is still has a founding in Chinese culture. It seems like all of the 'warriors' in Wendy's family line were women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that the monks would've just been okay with that. Sure, maybe they could've worked it in somehow, but they offered no explanation whatsoever. By doing so, they just contributed to the many cheesy attempts at female empowerment made by Hollywood and the media.<br /><br />Nevermind that, however- let us continue.<br /><br />Wendy's character becomes more unbearable as the film go on. Yes, she is a teenager, and it is near homecoming- I mean, who wants to fight evil during homecoming? The problem is, when 'the evil' starts to manifest himself, Wendy does not seem as freaked out as she should be. She is extremely careless- even for someone like her. She continues not to care about her training. I will use this conversation as an example, Shen: 'If you do not win this battle, evil will take over, and everything good will be gone.' Wendy: 'Whoa, talk about pressure. Well...let's talk about something else.' Yes, let's Wendy. Let's also go dancing when you should rightfully be training. Of course Shen lets her, but his character has an excuse. Better that he cooperate with her, than that he not, and she not train at all, and get them both killed.<br /><br />Oh, speaking of which. Shen also told Wendy that it was his destiny for him to die for her in battle, as he had for her great-grandmother (I am assuming that part).<br /><br />This makes Wendy's actions more unforgivable.<br /><br />As the script-writer would have it, Wendy's homecoming and this 'great battle' are on exactly the same day. Do you know what Wendy does? Do you even have to guess? Yes, she does end up going to the battle, for when she tries to leave for homecoming, the monks, (who Shen had trapped in the body of her coach and teachers because she 'felt weird fighting an old man') inform her that Shen has gone to battle alone, so she goes to save him.<br /><br />We initially see some half-decent fighting, that is actually entertaining. Until finally, the great evil comes out of Wendy's rival-for-homecoming's body, and creates the actual embodiment of himself out of the broken pieces of the bodies of his ancient warriors.<br /><br />Don't ask.<br /><br />Anyway, Wendy gets all 'panicky.' Then Shen goes and defends her from this guy- forgive me for forgetting his long Chinese name- and manages to get himself killed.<br /><br />Wendy catches Shen as he makes his long descent from being thrust uncomfortably high into the air.<br /><br />She screams title of said article out.<br /><br />Now...it was bad enough that Wendy became powerful far, far too fast. No, I will not let it be excused because it was her 'destiny' and she had 'the power within' her.<br /><br />Since when, though, did she learn healing? No, worst...since when could she resurrect people? So Shen is raised from the dead. Then, Wendy and he fight the guy.<br /><br />He loses way to easily. The worst part, is when they jump together, and kick him at the same time, and he is banished forever. Then the monks commend Wendy on her sacrifice.<br /><br />Two things, #1: Don't the script writer and director know a battle needs a little more 'finesse' to it? #2: What sacrifice? The fact that she didn't go to homecoming? Because the girl did not break a sweat, or even bleed. I mean, come on now, this movie was TV PG, I wanted to see somebody get hurt.<br /><br />Ah-hem...moving on.<br /><br />I know it sounds like maybe I should have given the movie a one, based on my comments. Part of critique, you must know, though, is breaking a thing down. You don't necessarily try to look for the bad, but if it's there, you bring attention to it. This movie has a lot of bad, but something funny happens when you never really expect something to be all too great in the first place.<br /><br />So, I suppose it was all right. Not that me not saying it wasn't all right would've stopped anybody from watching it.

I just saw the movie on tv. I really enjoyed it. I like a good mystery. and this one had me guessing up to the end. Sean Connery did a good job. I would recomend it to a friend.

Well, well....Roeg touched a bit of a nerve there, didn't he? He was a genius while he was cataloguing his various characters' descents into psychosis for a couple of decades, but as soon as he has the bad taste to suggest that redemption (or even some good advice) might be found in the bad old Catholic church, the hipper-than-thou alternative movie crowd gets extra vicious. Worse still, Theresa Russell's character - faced with experiences that nothing in her avowedly rationalist outlook has an explanation for, is unwillingly forced to deal with those experiences on another level - that of the spiritual. You know, the realm of the ignorant and superstitious, the sort of thing that the art-house cinephiles are supposed to be above. Oh, the horror... So she finds her marriage - the idea that it might be a uniquely important commitment - affirmed by what seems uncomfortably like divine intervention. People who find this idea prima facie offensive could maybe ask themselves why they instinctively jump into attack mode at being challenged to take seriously the idea of a spiritual dimension to their lives. But they probably won't. Sure, this film has some problems, notably Talia Shire's delirious hamwork as the overwrought nun, 1950s-style attire and all. And the dialogue between Marie Davenport and the young priest in their last scene is straight out of the Spellbound School of Glib Interpretations (though Hitchcock's movie escaped similar charges due to the source of wisdom having impeccably secular credentials as a Freudian psychoanalyst). But, sadly, Nicolas Roeg appears to have copped a critical mauling as much for even asking the question as for the possible answers this film presents.

So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.<br /><br />There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.<br /><br />It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.<br /><br />4 out of 10, kids.

Lance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?<br /><br />I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.<br /><br />Then again, for making this thing...maybe not.

Dark Harvest 3: Scarecrow: 1 out of 10: In Einstein's theory of relativity time is of the perspective of the one that views time. (Or so I've heard) In other words this movie feels a lot longer that an hour and change. Even on fast-forward (And you will be reaching for that fast forward button) it clocks in somewhere around eternity.<br /><br />If you are familiar with Lionsgate's own version of Project Greenlight (This is where they buy a home movie but a fancy cover on it and sneak it into the horror section of your local Wal-Mart) you will not be surprised by the complete and utter lack of entertainment value contained within.<br /><br />The line reading (I refuse to call it acting) is uniformly awful. This is a collection of deadbeat dads and strippers pretending to be in a movie between cans of Schlitz. The camera work is drunken father shooting vacation film quality and while the special effects are okay the scariest effect is the breast augmentation scars in the nude scene.<br /><br />The story is awful, the sets are from a haunted Halloween put on by ADHD middle school students and once again the line reading (remember this is not acting anymore than sinking to the bottom of a pool is swimming) is distracting beyond mere words. Avoid.

Otto Preminger's 'The Man with the Golden Arm' is a reference to heroin addiction - something that must have been rather risky to film back in 1955, fifty years ago (the censors today STILL have a problem with drug content in films!).<br /><br />The lead role was originally offered to Marlon Brando, then snatched by Frank Sinatra before Brando could respond. Sinatra convincingly portrays a pro card dealer and ex-heroin addict who returns home to the city only to find himself battling the demons of temptation.<br /><br />Preminger is one of my favorite directors (his 'Anatomy of a Murder' starring James Stewart is a brilliant and revolutionary courtroom drama). Preminger pretty much helped change the face of cinema back in the '50s - 'Anatomy of a Murder' was extremely controversial when it came out due to both its plot and content (references to rape, women's 'panties,' seduction, etc.) and 'The Man with the Golden Arm' deals with a topic that is equally volatile.<br /><br />However, Preminger pulls it off without becoming exploitative. This is like a forerunner to 'The Panic in Needle Park' (1971) and bears more than a few similarities in terms of general motifs to the classic Billy Wilder movie 'Lost Weekend,' starring Ray Milland. These three films in particular are probably the best movies about alcoholism predating the 1980s and still remain relevant today.

I liked this show from the first episode I saw, which was the 'Rhapsody in Blue' episode (for those that don't know what that is, the Zan going insane and becoming pau lvl 10 ep). Best visuals and special effects I've seen on a television series, nothing like it anywhere.

I remember the trailer for this infamously weak spin-off of Conan. I saw the movie years later and laughed my head off. Unintentionally! Poor Briggite Nielson. Her career never had a chance thanks to Cobra and Red Sonja. The plot of the movie is this: Sonja(Brigitte Nielson) hails from a tribe of female warriors who were killed off by an evil queen Gedren(Sandahl Bergman). Queen Gedren steals the orb the female warriors were protecting and uses it to destroy each town she passes by. Sonja goes on a hunt for Queen Gedren and later finds out that Gedren killed her parents. On her quest she reluctantly joins Kalidor(Arnold Schwarzenegger), an arrogant prince named Tarn(Ernie Reyes Jr.) and his bumbling idiotic servant, Falkon(Paul L. Smith). Together they go on a hunt for Queen Gedren and the orb. The acting is sub par and the action scenes are soso. I mean Briggite Neilson looks so emotionally distant. For someone who lost her whole family as well as her female comrades, Sonja doesn't look fazed at all. Arnold is playing his usual stoic role and Ernie Reyes Jr.... what an annoying snot-nosed brat he was in this movie! The moronic manservant Falkon had more personality than these guys. The action scenes are the only redeeming moments of the movie even though sometimes they fall flat. The scene where they fight the mechanical sea creature made me laugh till my ribs ached. The dialog is a hoot also. Its as if the screenwriter thought that nobody was going to take the movie seriously so he gave everybody stupid lines to work with. I can only recommend this movie to you if you like your epic movies extra campy. Anyone else don't bother.

The director was probably still in his early learning stages when he tried his hand at westerns. Have a look at the outfits. Everybody looks well-scrubbed, well-brushed, well-dressed and well-ironed as though ready for church. Even the horses look well-groomed and shiny. This is a WESTERN, for crying out loud! It's supposed to look dusty, nasty and sweaty. And then there's the amateurish acting of the females in this bird. The whole lot, a dozen or so, all pretty and well-endowed, were just freshly raped and widowed, but hardly a tear flows. Instead they all look with great interest (if not downright lust) at the newly arrived magnificent seven who they subsequently feed, bandage and comfort with love during their battles with the bandits. The same directing criticism goes for Lee van Cleef, who does a reasonable good acting job. Our Lee, playing the law, just lost his dear wife. But Lee, hard as organic rock, shows no emotion whatsoever and finds himself within days of his spouse's demise in the arms of a juicy widow with whom he, together with her brood, walks off into the future. The cad. And then there's another thing that always kind of bothers me with this type of films: it doesn't matter how many dynamite-induced explosions take place in the middle of a pack of some 50 horses, never mind how many shots are being fired at the rabble on top of them, only the crooks get killed and the nags always go their way rejoicing in one piece. (I know...silly moi...it's just a movie...). It's not the worst western ever made, but prepare for some serious yawning.

For a really wonderful movie, you could also try seeing the movie about Saint Francis of Assisi - good for any audience. Best thing I liked about this movie was the Mexico landscape, & it gets the movie up to a 2. I was surprised that these actors didn't have terrible sunburn, they were so were not desert dwellers. And Moses is said to have a speakING impediment, but certainly not here. Even the 'miracle' scenes were contrived & un-believable. And what's the point if you can belief anything in a TV story? Talk about dumbing down, I thought this Hallmark-made movie was pathetic, & I can see why others hate Hollywood. I don't, just some of these corporate profit grubbers. You don't have to be any kind of religious to benefit from 'Jesus of Nazareth', but for this waste of celluloid you need to be bored, with nothing to do, dumbed-down & religious. And for a real movie experience, try 'Short Cut to Nirvana', a very highly rated film.

I rarely give ratings less than 5, but in this instance I must weigh in. Elmore Leonard is a great writer with many wonderful, complex books, original characters, crisp dialogue, invigorating plot twists. Films based on his books go way back to Hombre (Paul Newman), Mr. Majestyk (Bronson), and Out of Sight (Clooney / Lopez) among others. Even when done so-so the films at least have some measure of story essence coming through. This one, .... it is simply not a worthy addition to the catalog.<br /><br />The acting is bad (I do not know why, because these are very capable people here) and the story is handled with stupidity. The characters are re-arranged, the chemistry is missing, the actors and actresses are mis-cast.<br /><br />Since Elmore Leonard is a really great story teller, I would hope that anyone who does not know his work would be dissuaded from reading his books because they saw this disappointing rendition of one of his stories.<br /><br />The story is a sequel to Get Shorty. If you have not seen that film, do not watch this. If you have seen Get Shorty, do not proceed to this.<br /><br />I saw Be Cool a few years back, and tonight have been re-visiting the vid. The first time must not have made such a negative impression because I had forgotten how dismal this sequel was.<br /><br />Fortunately, I think no less of those who appeared in this film for having done so. They probably expected something more. Get Shorty was original and great fun. Travolta I nearly always like, but he is so much better in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction and in the preceding Get Shorty. He was clearly unable to enjoy whatever was going on here.<br /><br />And I hear Freaky Deaky,another Elmore Leonard book, is in pre-production for 2008 release. Hopefully they can pull it off.<br /><br />Read the books. They are almost all great.

As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this 'British Little Big Horn' was truly boring.<br /><br />The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into 'staging' and were determined to get their money's worth.<br /><br />Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.<br /><br />There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.

this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all.

This is far more than the charming story of middle-aged man discovering the pleasures of ballroom dancing (although it IS that as well). It's the tale of one person learning to love life again, pushing past all the pressures of work and money to discover joy once more. The bonus in this film is a fascinating insight into the slowly changing attitudes of modern Japan toward everything from ballroom dancing to physical contact. There are scenes that will make you laugh out loud ... a few where you'll want to get up and tango ... and many others where you'll just feel good.<br /><br />This is a great introduction to contemporary Japanese filmmaking for those who might be under the impression that all Japanese movies are 'heavy' and inaccessible. <br /><br />

Disney, the film name that once stood for all things innocent and suitable for all ages, has finally started to realise that to survive it needs to become more diverse. Such diversity has been very apparent in the last couple of years. Films like 'Tarzan' and 'The Emperor's New Groove' have made an attempt to move away from the traditional song-driven routine of Disney's past and into new, uncharted territory. 'Atlantis' is the boldest step yet, but we have to remember: This is STILL Disney. The first ever serious film to come out of Disney's animation studio is a major achievement for them - in fact it's so serious it makes it into PG territory. Perhaps why a lot of families were scared off from seeing it this past summer.<br /><br />But despite the more mature subject matter, this is still a film that Disney wanted to draw in the families with, not just mature audiences, so the plot had to be kept simple enough for children to understand, but interesting enough to take it away from the realms of 'The Little Mermaid' et al.<br /><br />So what we get is actually a potentially detailed plot, unfortunately suffering the blow of being condensed into a 96-minute movie. Ultimately, this is an action film about Atlantis, not about the exposition preceding it, so we are whisked through the first half hour with as many sequences bombarding the screen as is possible without losing coherency. Suspend your disbelief of how the characters get from point A to point B so quickly, you're unlikely to find an animated film that detailed coming out of Hollywood! If you want epic levels of detail in the plot, turn to James Cameron's 'Titanic'. Both films feature a boat in some manner.<br /><br />And let's talk about love, shall we? Yes, as with a lot of films, the lead male (one Milo Thatch, a bumbling archaeologist) and lead female (Kida, the clichéd Atlantian princess) are set to fall in love with each other. But what I found was not as clichéd as I was expecting. By film's end, for once, the characters touching/feeling/kissing sequence was far more subdued. There's various points in the film where the attraction grows, but it's just not in the ballpark of, say, 'The Little Mermaid' (A good thing).<br /><br />You may have grasped that this is a rather clichéd film. Correct. You have your leading hero and heroine, backed up by more than half a dozen crew members who go on the expedition, all being given their moments during the film. Numerous other characters appear, take up the few minutes of screentime, then disappear. It doesn't take a genius to do the maths – a 96-minute film with a focus on action and visuals, and with a considerable cast, has very little time to expand the characters to any major extent. So what does it rely on? Clichés, and lots of them. Every character emulates something that has been done a thousand times before. You have the bumbling scientist, the attractive princess, the square-jawed colonel, the rich eccentric, the maniacal sleazebag, the Russian femme fatale – need I go on?<br /><br />I don't know why this got to anyone – I found the tongue-in-cheek nature of this film quite amusing. Alright, this is meant to be a serious flick, but do you really expect Disney to give up every single trait of their history? At least the writers have tried to come up with consistently witty dialogue, and sometimes it even is a little inspired.<br /><br />But in the end it's those big stunning visuals that put the icing on this cake. The CGI animation is truly amazing in places, and doesn't dwarf the characters, which was a flaw that let the recent 'Titan A.E.' down. Speaking of characters, Disney hired an outside comics industry artist to create the designs, bringing an anime style to the film. Infact the visual presentation of the film as a whole owes a lot to anime, much more so than any previous Disney outing. This resulted in a conflict with fans of the Japanese anime, 'Nadia', for the film's overall similarities with said cartoon series. Having not seen this anime, I can't comment.<br /><br />With picture, there is sound. Gary Rydstrom heads up the sound team, and what a soundtrack! From the opening shot the sound stage is alive and is a treat. James Newton Howard treats us to a dynamic musical score, which compliments the film in every way, never sounding out of place and always helping to build the tension or subdue it.<br /><br />Perhaps I missed the point of what the creators intended. To me, the film conveys that it's an adventure thrill ride, albeit with a more serious tone than any Disney film before it. If you don't like the clichéd tongue-in-cheek attitude, then perhaps the effort that has been poured into the visuals will delight. Heck, at least the mythology is far more correct than can be said about other Disney efforts (*cough*Hercules*cough*).<br /><br />This is a positive, 10 out of 10 review, from someone who was blown away by this film. I always suspend my disbelief with any animated film – after all, the laws of the real world are more than frequently broken in the cartoon medium. So sit back, enjoy the ride, and perhaps everyone can find something to enjoy about this film.

The whole movie was done half-assed. It could have been a much better movie but, that would have required a re-write and different actors. Compared to 'Traffic' this was a wreck. I am just glad I didn't have to pay for it.<br /><br />Spoiler:<br /><br />What was the point of having crooked cops getting arrested? To share the guilt of drug dealers and make them feel better? Pu-leaze! The parents were scum, driven by greed, and didn't even consider the harm they were doing; as pointed out by Ice-T. <br /><br />2 out of 10

Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece.

He plays straight but with a quiet intensity that makes him one of the top cops in movie history. Roy Scheider stars in a poor man's French Connection that has a little of the same gritty appeal. FC is a better movie, but I prefer watching this one because 1) I think Scheider is great and this is his best movie, and 2) this has the best car chase EVER, one that makes Bullitt look like a cable production (thanks again to Bill Hickman, who actually plays the driver). It doesn't hurt that Tony LoBianco stops by (again) to play a baddie. Please enjoy.

Sholay: Considered to be one of the greatest films. I always wondered if they would ever remake being the classic it is. That was the time RGV announced this movie and I was somewhat excited to see it. I always thought that maybe this will be a good movie, but every week we would here RGV change something. And the movie is a very B-Grade movie, something that I had not hoped.<br /><br />I really tried looking for positives, but I promised to keep Sholay out of my mind. The cinematography is awesome. The movie tries to be its own. But that is the up side. The action sequences are weak. The screenplay had potential. The biggest flaw is editing. None of the scenes excite you. For example, the comedy sequences felt very out of place and forced. Ironic because comedy was just as entertaining in the original. And none of the characters are developed. And no scenes will linger until the end. And the ending was very disappointing.<br /><br />The biggest question is acting. Amitabh Bachchan was good as Gabbar Singh, nothing great. It seemed as if they concentrated too much on his look, that the character only looks menacing, but you don't get creeped out. Mohanlal is barely in the movie, but he impresses in his few scenes. Ajay Devgan was decent. It wasn't so much the performance, he gave it his all, it was the weak script. Prashant Raj is very confident, and has potential to make it far with better movies.<br /><br />I had most expectations for Sushmita Sen, who was probably the best of the lot. She was expressive, but this still was not enough. Nisha Kothari surprised me. She seemed disinterested for the most part, but her emotional scene after her friend's death was quite good. Seems as if she needs to find a director who will help her talent, not her cute looks. But what disappointed me most was chemistry. Ajay Devgan and Prashant Raj didn't look like friends. Ajay-Nisha were not a strong couple. No passion was to be found between Sushmita and Prashant. And Amitabh and Mohanlal did not the hateful passion they needed.<br /><br />As for songs, they pretty much suck. Urmila's Mehbooba was too overblown and I pretty much slept through it. It was however nicely danced. The Holi number was enjoyable, but not memorable. Same went for the other songs. For someone who looked forward to this movie, I was heavily disappointed. I had high hopes for RGV because of his Jungle, but seems as if he lost his talent during the shooting of this movie. But hopefully he regains his talent for Sarkar Raj. But this movie is best forgotten. All the positives still do not make up for the boring movie it is.

My wife and I saw every episode in this series and loved it. However, the series was cut short without a final episode by the producers of the show. It ended with a typical end-the-season cliff hanger leaving it's fans feeling cheated. A waste of great writing and acting.

I really enjoy this genre but The Cell was one of the worst movies I've ever been unfortunate enough to watch. While about 25 percent of my audience wandered in and out of the theater during the viewing (or left entirely) I was dumb enough to stick it out. The main problems with this story (there were too many to list all) is that with this type of film you have to do two things... one, provide fear of the killer (being that they catch him twenty minutes into the film that's gone) and you must give the victim whose life is at stake (the girl in the tank) enough character development that you actually care whether they get to her in time or not. Not only did I lose track of the girl, I was given such little insight into her that she was only a blurry face and when I did remember she was part of the story I really didn't care what happened to her. While the visuals were interesting in an LSD flashback sort of way, they often times made no sense and this should be a lesson that visuals can't make up for lack of a good story (see Phantom Menace for another example) Finally, does anyone know or care what was up with the women kneeling in that field and staring at the sky? Ridiculous.

I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5

Target is the story of a special agent who, after carrying out orders to assassinate Turkish 'Terrorists' (note that this is one of those American 'movies for guys who love mindless nationalistic super-patriotic crap movies'), returns home to find that his ex-wife and two kids are taking hostage. Charlie Snow has just a couple of hours to do whatever the terrorists tell him in order to get them back.<br /><br />This was by far one of THE worst movies I have ever seen. And, had it not been for someone I know actually (and probably, mistakenly) taking it out of the video store, I would never have watched this giant pile of garbage to begin with.<br /><br />The movie plays out like any generic action movie story I have ever seen before. In fact, these are the kind of things they spoof on variety shows, that is how bad it is. I half expected In Living the Color's 'Homey the Clown' to Mad TV's Will Sasso doing his Steven Segal impression to bust out on the screen half way through, to remind you that this was just an exaggerated action movie, but now our characters are here to spoof how ridiculous it really is. There were not even any good fighting or action sequences. By the way things are played out, you wouldn't even think that anyone was kidnapped, that there were any terrorists, or that anything remotely interesting was going on.<br /><br />Not only is the story completely and utterly uninteresting, the acting is so terribly wooden. Just watch the part where Stephen Baldwin, as former special agent Charlie Snow, is talking to the kidnappers on the telephone. They tell him that they have his wife, and they put her on the phone. She says 'Charlie, help!' or something to that effect. And Baldwin replies 'it's okay, honey' in such a deadpan manner, you think he was reading the script and trying to sound out the words phonetically. I imagine that, despite being such a ridiculously bad movie (one that belongs on the bottom 100 on IMDb--a list that they should expand to at least 250 movies and should contain nearly every Stephen Baldwin movie), someone with some talent could have at least made the effort not to ham it up as much. Someone. Anyone. I couldn't get past the fact that everyone sounded like they were reading from a script. Save that is, the only person in the whole friggin movie who has any talent whatsoever (and thus should not have been in this), Mad TV's Deborah Wilson.<br /><br />This was the capital cheese fest. How truly embarrassing.

Paul Muni and Bette Davis overact monstrously while lacklustre studio hack Archie Mayo seems distracted and oblivious in this racially provocative film that derives its 'bittersweet ending' by condoning segregationist attitudes. Heavy handed and poorly constructed the film collapses under its own weight within the first fifteen minutes with an out of control courtroom scene that it never recovers from as Mr. Muni begins to chew up scenery by the yard hollering and howling away in an almost incoherent fashion.<br /><br />Johnny Ramirez is a Mexican American from the other side of the tracks who through determination and grit attains a law degree from a store front night school. In his first big case involving an auto accident he displays only ineptitude and is quickly made to look the fool by his well heeled opponents and an impatient judge who recommends he be disbarred. Devastated by the setback an angry Johnny takes on a job at a gambling joint where he is befriended by the owner Charlie Roark (Eugene Palette) who likes his style. The owner cuts him in on the place but problems arise with Mrs. Roark (Davis) who also wants a piece of Johnny. She kills Charlie, implicates Johnny and slowly goes mad before he is acquitted and free to be with a high society Wasp who coldly explains to him that they are from 'different tribes, savage' and it will never work. When she flees to escape his rage she is run over and killed by a car. Ramirez sells the casino and moves back to his poor neighborhood rationalizing that its best to stay with your own.<br /><br />In addition to this appalling denouement Bordertown has a series of bad performances to compliment the overall ugliness of the story. Unfair as his plight might be, Muni's Ramirez is so abrasive and arrogant it becomes hard to show sympathy for such a bull headed blunderer. Davis is no better as the less than loyal wife matching the same adolescent emotions of Muni. Her Lady Macbeth mad scenes give no indication that she was about to become the best film actress of her era. Margaret Lindsay as Muni's American Dream is cold, remote and flat.<br /><br />Bad as Bordertown is (and it is very) it remains an interesting indicator of the times and acceptable attitudes. The rest is just a mishmash of bad acting and uninspired direction.

Poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.<br /><br /> There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time.

I'm rather surprised that anybody found this film touching or moving.<br /><br />The basic premise of the film sounded to me like an excellent, if provocative, idea for a movie about a rare sort of relationship, but one (if I can judge by the real-life examples I've known) is extremely deep and loving.<br /><br />However, the film is cheaply scripted--poorly scripted--and although it has a number of very pretty-looking shots, I didn't find it to be anything special.<br /><br />Probably the biggest problem is that it is far too short and poorly-composed to give its audience time enough to invest, emotionally, in the characters: we don't really care about any of them, and so their stresses and obstacles don't really touch us.<br /><br />I think a REMAKE--from the screenplay up--with some character development by some really good writers--could improve it greatly. It is instructive to compare this film with Brokeback Mountain, which the screen-writers took to far loftier levels than did the author of the screenplay--screen-writers who were clearly conscious of how to write a classical tragedy, and carried out their task with care, planning, and superb craftsmanship! However, people only seem to remake those films that don't need it! You're not really missing anything if you skip this one: I found it very disappointing indeed, and it is only saved from getting a 1-star from me by virtue of the daring and gumption it took to make a film on this sensitive subject.

Yes, Be My Love was Mario Lanza's skyrocket to fame and still is popular today. His voice was strong and steady, so powerful in fact that MGM decided to use him in The Great Caruso. Lanza himself thought he was the reincarnation of Caruso. Having read the book by Kostelanitz who wrote a biography of Lanza, he explains that the constant practise and vocal lessons became the visionary Caruso to Lanza. There is no doubt that Lanza did a superb job in the story, but the story is not entirely true; blame it on Hollywood! I used to practise singing his songs years ago, and became pretty good myself until I lost my voice because of emphysema/asthma ten years ago. Reaching the high note of Be My Love is not easy; but beautiful!

According to the article at http://blog.ifeng.com/article/2737487.html, one of the actors in the film, Carina Lau, was forced to appear in this movie for free. She was the victim of an infamous kidnapping shortly before this movie was made, and later photos of her in distress were published in a magazine, which has since been forced to shut down and its publisher sent to jail. The actress denies she was assaulted but there was a movie leaked on net that allegedly showed her being gang-raped. (The Hong Kong press, out of respect for her, has mostly refused to report on the incident, but google will turn up a few articles about it.)

I felt I had to add a comment after seeing the breathless gushing of the other comment. I was taken to see this film as a child by my unknowing parents, expecting a normal Norman Wisdom jolly romp comedy. Instead, what you get is this insipid British sex comedy of the worst kind where Norman (Norman!) plays a swinger aiming to get off with as many 'birds' as possible. Absolutely typical of the genre - poorly filmed and acted, no semblance of a script beyond the worst kind of double-entendre, and very vague hints of 'naughtiness'. And all seemingly on that special grainy film stock that is reserved for 1960's-1970's British low budget films. About the only memorable thing is the annoyingly catchy theme tune, which still pops up in my brain after 30-odd years.<br /><br />Finally, in the last scene you also get to see Norman naked - running across the sand and looking frozen. I think so anyway- at that point my mother hauled me out of the cinema. I saw it again, many years later, and guess what, it was still dire.<br /><br />If you're any fan or take any interest in the little man and his career, you'll apply the '10-foot-bargepole' rule to this. Believe me, you do not need to see Norman Wisdom's backside.

This tale based on two Edgar Allen Poe pieces ('The Fall of the House of Usher', 'Dance of Death' (poem) ) is actually quite creepy from beginning to end. It is similar to some of the old black-and-white movies about people that meet in an old decrepit house (for example, 'The Cat and the Canary', 'The Old Dark House', 'Night of Terror' and so on). Boris Karloff plays a demented inventor of life-size dolls that terrorize the guests. He dies early in the film (or does he ? ) and the residents of the house are subjected to a number of terrifying experiences. I won't go into too much detail here, but it is definitely a must-see for fans of old dark house mysteries.<br /><br />Watch it with plenty of popcorn and soda in a darkened room.<br /><br />Dan Basinger 8/10

It may have been inevitable that with the onslaught of 'slasher' movies in the early 1980's, that a few good ones might slip through the cracks. This is a great 'rare' film from Jeff Lieberman, who insured his cult status with his memorable 1970's films 'Squirm' and 'Blue Sunshine'.<br /><br />Five young people head into the Oregon mountains (this movie was actually shot on location) to do some camping and check out the deed to some land that one of them has acquired. Before long, they will predictably be terrorized by a bulky killer with an incredibly creepy wheezing laugh.<br /><br />'Just Before Dawn' is noticeably more ambitious, 'arty', and intelligent than some slasher films. Lieberman actually fleshes out the characters - well, two of them, anyway - as much as a 90-minute-long film will allow him. The film has genuine moments of suspense and tension, and actually refrains from graphic gore, save for one killing right at the beginning.<br /><br />There is an above-average cast here, including Oscar winner George Kennedy, as a forest ranger who's understandably gone a little flaky from having been alone in the wilderness for too long. Jack Lemmon's son Chris, future Brian De Palma regular Gregg Henry, blonde lead Deborah Benson (it's too bad she hasn't become a more well-known performer, judging by her work here), Ralph Seymour ('Ghoulies'), Mike Kellin ('Sleepaway Camp'), and Jamie Rose ('Chopper Chicks in Zombietown') round out the cast.<br /><br />Some of the shots are interesting, and the early music score by Brad Feidel (now best known for his 'Terminator' theme) is haunting and atmospheric.<br /><br />This is worth catching for the important plot twist at about the one hour mark, although a moment at about 75 minutes in involving the heroine and a tree and the killer is almost comical; it may actually remind a viewer of a cartoon! One of the most clever touches is the final dispatching of the killer, which I'd never seen before in a horror film and probably won't see again.<br /><br />I didn't give it 10 out of 10 because I can't honestly that I was that frightened. Still, it's an interesting slasher that is worthy of re-discovery.<br /><br />'That deed don't mean nothing, son. Those mountains can't read.'<br /><br />9/10

Jeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to 'get revenge' and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame ('it's OK son, crying helps,' he says to his son. Son says 'no it doesn't' and father says 'You're right..it doesn't.')Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller.

One would have expected Hitchcock's return to major studio filmmaking to err on the side of chastened caution. Surely few expected his most riotous, unrestrained film, a gleeful melange of vicious black comedy, exciting suspense, mocking manipulation, and astonishing flights of fancy. But that is precisely what they got: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.<br /><br />What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).<br /><br />Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.<br /><br />Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.<br /><br />Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.<br /><br />And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.<br /><br />STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self.

Well I would say that this is a very enjoyable and somewhat touching movie despite its flaws. I didn't believe for a minute that Matthau knew the first thing about being a dentist. Also, Hawn's character seemed to recover from suicidal depression rather quickly at the beginning of the movie. Not to mention the entire thing seemed rather ridiculous. However, the film does succeed due to a good pace, humor, and its stars. Matthau may not have been a dentist, but he was as amusing as he usually is. Bergman brought a great deal of sensitivity to the film (especially during the scene where her and Matthau go out for a drink after work) and also a good deal of humor. I believe it was her performance that made my brother take notice of this movie after overhearing a couple scenes. Hawn's performance is noteworthy, although an Oscar may have been over doing it a bit. Basically, don't take this movie too seriously and you will enjoy yourself.

There are two reasons why I did not give a 1 to this movie. One reason are some of the actors (like Malcolm McDowell and Gwynyth Walsh) work, who tried to play at their usually good level of acting. However at many scenes they were somehow blocked by the bad scripting.<br /><br />The other reason is the cool idea and looking of the Cyborg, which is quite different to most other such roles I've seen so far.<br /><br />Everything else in this movie is as bad as it can be. Boring scenes, useless and boring dialogs, bad script work. And it seemed as it was the first movie ever for many actors. It could have been an interesting story though, but they failed completely.

First, let me review the movie. This movie creeps me out, and I don't even believe in aliens! However, the movie has its flaws.<br /><br />There are three acts to this movie. Act One is perfect. It sets up the movie, and really builds up the creep factor. I must say the score is great! Everything is set up and it's set up perfectly.<br /><br />Act Two begins when Jillian, playing Sherry Burton, goes to the shrink. They hypnotize her, and she recalls the abduction. Act Two ruins the film when the aliens show up. 'Screaming Mad George' did the effects for the aliens. I must say they did a good job, except with their depiction of the 'Gray' aliens. No offense, but the Grays looked like inflatable door prizes.<br /><br />On a side note, I liked how they treated hypnosis in Acts One and Two. If you paid attention, you would notice that the husband and wife had two different memories. In the husband's version of events, the blue light zaps them and his wife says, 'Somebody's here,' or something like it. It makes sense. The husband is concerned for his wife. 'Someone' may hurt her. That's his issue. However in her version of events, she says, 'Help me!' She does not say 'Somebody's here.' This also makes sense. The aliens are after her. Wanting her husband to help and save her is her issue. Now back to the film.<br /><br />Act Three turns the film into a gore fest. It begins with a 'strange' ultrasound procedure. It's a typical gore fest, but it does have a surprise ending. I won't ruin it because it's actually an interesting development. <br /><br />The DVD and commentaries takes itself too seriously, but if you think Wilford Brimley saying 'Horsesh**' is funny, you might want to check it out in the cast interviews section. Now on to my praise of Jillian McWhirter.<br /><br />I could only hope Jillian will read this. I had never seen her before, but wow, what a performance! Let me tell the rest of you this. First of all, this is supposed to be a serious film. The details I will now describe may sound campy and fun, like 'Humanoids From The Deep' (1980), but it really isn't. Got that? Okay.<br /><br />Jillian is hot, naturally good-looking. She is naked for a lot of the film, a good thing. Unfortunately, she is usually being assaulted, terrorized, and raped, a very bad thing. However, she must act in a lot of this film naked. She gets points for overcoming that. She has to act happy, sad, horny, afraid, and physically hurt all in the span of a few moments. The turnaround of emotion is astounding! She has to cheer for joy when she learns she's pregnant. She has to scream in terror when the aliens take out her guts. She has to act very angry when her husband suggests that the baby isn't his. She has to act like she's in denial, saying nothing is wrong with her baby, when her husband says otherwise. A denial, I should note, that is really forced upon her by the aliens controlling her. I am talking Oscar-caliber performance here!<br /><br />Then there is the rape scene. It's disturbing, but since it's just some rubber alien, it's not too bad. In this scene, the alien is not a 'Gray' alien, so I will describe it. The alien has tentacles, and it's kind of like a table. Jillian is on the table-like part, restrained by the tentacles. By her head is the alien's head. The alien's head is long, and it flips down so that its head is now above Jillian's legs. Then, the alien's hey-nanu-nanu comes out of his forehead. It's forehead! Sounds pretty campy, right? Well, Jillian plays it straight, and she pulls it off! She has to act like an alien with its hey-nanu-nanu coming from its forehead is raping her, and she pulls it off! It's a very intense scene, but that's not what makes it. You see, this scene is done in a flashback. What makes the scene is Jillian's performance recalling these events. She is just lying in a hospital bed under hypnosis recalling the alien abduction, but her acting here is more intense than the actual rape scene! How many actors can pull off a performance in a scene that describes a rape that is more intense than the scene with the rape? Not many! However, Jillian does it.<br /><br />I could go on and on. Jillian, if you ever read this, I want you to know that I, (name withheld) alias of MegamanX-1, believe you are the best actress ever. You are the best actress ever! I could only hope you read this and take it with you always.<br /><br />As for everyone else, 'Progeny' (1999) is an Okay to Good film. I would recommend it.

I really love the sexy action and sci-fi films of the sixties and its because of the actress's that appeared in them. They found the sexiest women to be in these films and it didn't matter if they could act (Remember 'Candy'?). The reason I was disappointed by this film was because it wasn't nostalgic enough. The story here has a European sci-fi film called 'Dragonfly' being made and the director is fired. So the producers decide to let a young aspiring filmmaker (Jeremy Davies) to complete the picture. They're is one real beautiful woman in the film who plays Dragonfly but she's barely in it. Film is written and directed by Roman Coppola who uses some of his fathers exploits from his early days and puts it into the script. I wish the film could have been an homage to those early films. They could have lots of cameos by actors who appeared in them. There is one actor in this film who was popular from the sixties and its John Phillip Law (Barbarella). Gerard Depardieu, Giancarlo Giannini and Dean Stockwell appear as well. I guess I'm going to have to continue waiting for a director to make a good homage to the films of the sixties. If any are reading this, 'Make it as sexy as you can'! I'll be waiting!

I saw this film last night and came online specifically to see if others thought it was as awful as I did.<br /><br />Granted, obviously some people see a lot in this film that I didn't, so if you're one of those people, fine - good luck to you. But I'm a patient person. I've enjoyed extremely long films before. But this was an exercise in torture for me.<br /><br />I honestly felt that this was one of those films with little to say, and that it was more about style than substance - however, the style, too, made me feel like tearing my hair out. Pretty much anything interesting that happens during the course of the film happens OFF-SCREEN. It's like a deliberate attempt to make a film entirely from outtakes - the bits that would usually be reserved for the deleted scenes section of a DVD, if they were shown to the public at all.<br /><br />You don't even get to find out, in the end, ANYTHING about the main character, Francois. I had no sympathy for any of the characters in this film, except perhaps the violinist & his goat, and the old man who believes that octopuses live to 300 because they're really smart. Seriously, I was excited when it cut to a shot of Francois holding a gun to his head. I felt so ripped off when even his inevitable suicide turned out to be gut-wrenchingly boring.<br /><br />Oh, and where was the editor? Off smoking opium, too? I swear, I almost screamed every time I was subjected to an extended shot of absolutely nothing happening, except perhaps someone pacing backwards and forwards, and then FINALLY there would be a very abrupt cut to the next scene, and it would be A YEAR LATER, and WE'D MISSED EVERYTHING INTERESTING THAT HAPPENED IN THE MEANTIME, and everyone was STILL wearing the SAME BLOODY CLOTHES....!?!?!???<br /><br />So, in conclusion, if you liked it - great. But this review is intended as an antidote to the fawning 'you'll love this film if you love cinema' dross I've seen posted here and elsewhere. (See? I hated the film and I STILL included a sly winking reference to its content!)

In this approximately 34-second Thomas Edison-produced short, we see Annabelle Moore performing the Loie Fuller-choreographed 'Serpentine Dance' in two different fantastical, flowing robes.<br /><br />Moore was one of the bigger stars of the late Victorian era. She was featured in a number of Edison Company shorts, including this one, which was among the first Kinetoscope films shown in London in 1894.<br /><br />Loie Fuller had actually patented the Serpentine Dance, which Moore performs here in robes (as well as entire frames) that are frequently hand tinted in the film, presaging one of the more common symbolic devices of the silent era. Supposedly, the Moore films were popular enough to have to be frequently redone (including refilming). The version available to us now may be a later version/remake. Moore became even more popular when it was rumored that she would appear naked at a private party at a restaurant in New York City. She later went on to star as the 'Gibson Bathing Girl' in the Ziegfeld Follies in 1907. She appeared there until 1912.<br /><br />The short is notable for its framing of motion, which, especially during the 'second half', becomes almost abstract. It somewhat resembles a Morris Louis painting, even though this is almost 60 years before Louis' relevant work.<br /><br />You should be able to find this short on DVD on a number of different anthologies of early films.

Owen loves his Mamma...only he'd love her better six feet under in this dark, laugh-out-loud comedy that both stars and is directed by Danny DeVito, with admirable assists from Billy Crystal and Anne Ramsey in the title role.<br /><br />'Throw Momma From The Train' is a terrific comedy, even if it isn't a great film. It's too shallow in parts, and the ending feels less organic than tacked on. But it's a gut-splitting ride most of the way, with Crystal and DeVito employing great screen chemistry while working their own separate comic takes on the essence of being a struggling writer (DeVito is avid but untalented; Crystal is blocked and bitter).<br /><br />Crystal's Professor Donner believes his ex-wife stole his book (the unfortunately titled 'Hot Fire') and can't write more than the opening line of his next book, which doesn't come easy. He teaches a creative writing class of budding mediocrities, including a middle-aged woman who writes Tom Clancy-type fiction but doesn't know what that thing is the submarine captain speaks through; and an upholstery salesman who wants to write the story of his life. Mr. Pinsky is probably the funniest character for laughs-per-minutes-on-screen, an ascot-wearing weirdo who sees literature as an excuse to write his opus: '100 Girls I'd Like To Pork.'<br /><br />Then there's DeVito's Owen Lift, who calls himself Professor Donner's 'star pupil' even though the teacher won't read his work in class. Owen is a somewhat unusual character to star in a movie, a man-child in his late 30s who lives with his overbearing mother, Anne Ramsey, who calls him 'lardass' and other endearing sentiments. In any other movie, we'd be asked to feel sorry for Owen, but 'Throw Momma From The Train' piles life's cruelties onto this sad sack for laughs and expects us to go along. That's one big reason why this film probably loses a lot of people.<br /><br />For those of us who enjoy the humor of this character, even identifying with him, and take the rest of what we see here as a lark, it's not as big a stretch to go along with the bigger gambit this comedy takes, asking us to watch in amusement while Owen enlists Professor Donner's help in a plan to kill his mother. Actually, he first goes to Hawaii to kill Donner's hated ex, then tells the professor it's his turn to kill Mrs. Lift, 'swapping murders' as seen in Hitchcock's 'Strangers On A Train.'<br /><br />As a director, DeVito not only complements his actors' performances with scene-setting that places the accent on dialogue, he makes some bold visual statements, throwing in bits of amusing unreality to keep the audience on its toes (and away from taking things too seriously.)<br /><br />Also helping matters is writer Stu Silver, who keeps the laughs coming with his quotable patter. 'You got rats the size of Oldsmobiles here.' 'She's not a woman...She's the Terminator.' 'One little murder and I'm Jack the Ripper.' Those are all Crystal's words, but some of the funniest lines, which work only in context but absolutely kill, are DeVito's and Ramsey's. Apparently Silver never wrote another screenplay after this, according to the IMDb, and that's a shame, because he had real talent for it.<br /><br />The best scene in this movie, when Crystal meets Ramsey, was actually used in its entirety as a theatrical 'coming attraction' presentation, the only time I've seen a movie promoted that way. Owen introduces the professor to his mother as 'Cousin Patty,' and when Momma says he doesn't have a Cousin Patty, panicky Owen loses it. 'You lied to me,' he yells out, slamming the professor's forehead with a pan.<br /><br />Of course, in reality the professor wouldn't groan out something witty from the floor, but 'Throw Momma From The Train' works effectively at such moments, when playing its Looney Tunes vibe for all its worth. DeVito hasn't disappeared from films, of course, but it's a mystery why he hasn't really followed up on the directorial promise of this movie. Maybe it's because, as 'Throw Momma From The Train's lack of mainstream success shows, his kind of vision isn't to everyone's tastes. That's too bad for those of us who can watch this over and over, and like it.

How strange the human mind is; this center of activity wherein perceptions of reality are formed and stored, and in which one's view of the world hinges on the finely tuned functioning of the brain, this most delicate and intricate processor of all things sensory. And how much do we really know of it's inner-workings, of it's depth or capacity? What is it in the mind that allows us to discern between reality and a dream? Or can we? Perhaps our sense of reality is no more than an impression of what we actually see, like looking at a painting by Monet, in which the vanilla sky of his vision becomes our reality. It's a concept visited by filmmaker Cameron Crowe in his highly imaginative and consciousness-altering film, `Vanilla Sky,' starring Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz. At the age of thirty-three, David Aames (Cruise) inherits a publishing empire left to him by his father. His fifty-one percent controlling interest, however, has made him something of a marked man, as there are seven members of his board of directors, and each deems himself more worthy than the young Mr. Aames of the lion's share of the company. And fueling the fires of discontent is their perception that David lacks the focus the job requires.<br /><br />Admittedly, David likes to play; still, he's in control of the business and does what he sees fit, whether the board (he refers to them as the `Seven Dwarfs') likes it or not, and no one has ever had the courage to challenge him directly. But during a lavish birthday party in his honor, one of the corporate lawyers, Thomas Tipp (Timothy Spall) warns David that the seven are up to something behind his back. At the time, however, it's the last thing on David's mind; he's been having a casual affair with a friend, Julie Gianni (Cameron Diaz), but even that moves to the back burner when he meets a woman at his party that he can't get out of his mind. Her name is Sofia (Penelope Cruz), and after knowing her for only one night, she becomes a pivotal part of his life-- which is about to be turned upside down, as on the morning after his party he makes a decision that will change his life forever. And he is about to learn that sometimes, there is simply no going back.<br /><br />Director Cameron Crowe has crafted and delivered much more than just another film with this one; far more than a movie, `Vanilla Sky' is a vision realized. Beginning with the first images that appear on screen, he presents a visually stunning experience that is both viscerally and cerebrally affecting. It's a mind-twisting mystery that will swallow you up and sweep you away; emotionally, it's a rush-- and it may leave you exhausted, because it requires some effort to stay with it. But it's worth it. Think `Memento' with a driving rock n' roll soundtrack and a vibrant assault of colors proffered by the stroke of an impressionist's brush. There's darkness and light, and sounds that pound and drive until you can feel the blood rushing through your veins and throbbing in your brain. And all played out on a landscape of virtual reality swirling beneath that ever expanding vanilla sky. Simply put, this one's a real trip; it's exciting-- and it's a mind bender.<br /><br />As to the performances here, those who can't get past the mind-set of Tom Cruise as Maverick in `Top Gun,' or his Ethan Hunt in `Mission Impossible,' or those who perceive him only as a `movie star' rather than an actor, are going to have to think again in light of his work here. Because as David Aames, Cruise gives the best performance of his career, one that should check any doubts as to his ability as an actor at the door. He's made some interesting career choices the past few years, with films like `Magnolia' and `Eyes Wide Shut' merely warm-ups for the very real and complex character he creates here. And give him credit, too, for taking on a role that dispels any sense of vanity; this is Cruise as you've never seen him before. `Jerry Maguire' earned him an Oscar nomination, and this one should, also-- as well as the admiration and acclaim of his peers. Cruise is not just good in this movie, he is remarkable.<br /><br />Penelope Cruz turns in an outstanding, if not exceptional performance, as well, as Sofia, the woman of David's dreams. There's an alluring innocence she brings to this role that works well for her character and makes her forthcoming and accessible, yet she lacks any hint of mystery that may have added that special `something extra' to the part. But Crowe knows how to get the best out of his actors, and he certainly did with Cruz.<br /><br />He also knew what he was doing with Cameron Diaz, who is absolutely vibrant in the role of Julie. She's never looked better, and fairly sizzles on screen. But make no mistake, this is no `window-dressing' part, and Diaz delivers a complete package with this character. The quality of her performance can be measured, in fact, in the impact she makes with rather limited screen time. And it's the persona she integrates so fully with her innate beauty that makes Julie so unforgettable. Overall, a terrific job by Diaz.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Kurt Russell (Dr. McCabe), Jason Lee (Brian), Johnny Galecki (Peter), Armand Schultz (Dr. Pomerantz), Noah Taylor (Ed), Mel Thompson (`L.E.' Man), Jean Carol (Woman in New York) and John Fedevich (Silent Ed). About half-way through, this one may have you questioning your own sense of reality; but rest assured, by the end of `Vanilla Sky' all will be revealed. It's a reality-bender, to be sure, and a wild one; but this is exciting entertainment that offers a satisfying-- and unique-- experience, one you have to see to believe. It's the essential, and absolute, magic of the movies. 10/10.<br /><br />

Jean-Pierre Melville is a director I've only recently gotten acquainted with (I need to see Bob le Flambeur and Le Samourai again to fully grasp them), but in watching Le Cercle Rouge (The Red Circle, supposedly based on a saying in Buddhism) I realized I was watching as skillful and absorbing a crime film as I had seen in a quite some time. Though his film has dialog, it is mainly to keep the film's scenes rolling along, adherent to the plot. What kept me on the alert, even in seemingly mundane scenes/sequences, was the emphasis on the characters' movements, or behavior patterns. Melville has his story laid out, and he is careful to take his time to tell it (this could seem boring to some, but it does seem to work since he puts a little more emphasis on the weight of the characters/environments over plot). <br /><br />Yet look at each of the four main players: Alain Deleon as Corey (just released from prison, scheming a new heist), Gian Maria Volonte as Vogel (escaping & on the lam from hand-cuffed custody, meets Corey by luck), Yves Montand as Jansen (an aged pro with many years of experience with weapons, a friend of Vogel), and Andre Bourvil as Mattei (an experienced investigator, who is on the look-out for Vogel, and on his toes with internal affairs). Each of these actors plays their parts with precision, detachment, and they each have their own kinds of moments that indicate to the audience what their personalities might be besides as criminals and cops. The heist sequence gives little hints, for example, like how Vogel cops-a-feel off a female statue while passing down the halls, or how Jansen takes out a flask and merely has a whiff of the contents (and what a dream this guy creates). Even Corey's movements involving a photograph of a woman arouse interest. <br /><br />As absorbing and cool the story becomes, and as great the skills were to make it happen (via cinematographer Henri Decae, the editing, and the musical score by Eric Demarsan), it's the people on the screen that gain fascination, in how they stay true to their natures and ideals. Not a film to be missed by French new-wave enthusiasts, and modern-day crime movie buffs might want to take the 140 minutes to soak up the atmosphere of Melville's work. A suave piece of film-making that still ranks as one of my all-time favorites.

This film revolves as much around Japanese culture as it does the lives of one modern Japanese family. Physical contact is frowned upon for those over 7 (especially in public) hence all that bowing instead of hugging even when you are close friends/ relatives. Ballroom dancing involves putting your arms around someone else and that in public too! Never the less Ballroom dancing is (on the quite) immensely popular. People who do Ballroom dancing in Japan are viewed a bit like nudists in the west... many more would like to than do but are inhibited by the culture. A delightful family film, which any amateur dancer would enjoy for the dance sequences alone. I understand that it was more popular than Titanic in Japan. I guess the Japanese are just like the rest of us - they like to be hugged too.

THE LATE SHIFT was an interesting made for HBO movie that took a detailed look at the power struggle that ensued between David Letterman and Jay Leno when Johnny Carson announced his retirement and both wanted to replace him. This struggle is now part of Hollywood folklore, but for those who don't know the story and are aware of where Letterman is now, it might be interesting to learn that David Letterman wanted to replace Johnny Carson as host of THE TONIGHT SHOW more than anything in the world, but Letterman found his dreams being derailed as frequent guest host Leno had one of Hollywood's most powerful agents, Helen Kushnick, in his corner and working tirelessly to get her client the job. It's not often that we get to see behind the scenes Hollywood machinations recreated for entertainment value, but for fans of these two late night superstars, this movie provided a fascinating look at a very turbulent period in late night television. According to this movie, Letterman was practically promised the job by Carson himself while NBC had promised the job to Leno and that's where Helen Kushnick came in. The movie presents Leno as sort of a milquetoast who allowed his career to be manipulated by Kushnick and feigned ignorance to some of Helen's strong-willed manipulations of some of NBC's biggest power players and it presents Letterman as this smart and savvy businessman who, despite having Carson's support, was railroaded by NBC and Kushnick. John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck credibly recreate Letterman and Leno, respectively, but it is the razor-sharp performance of Oscar winner Kathy Bates as Helen Kushnick that keeps this movie bubbling. Bates commands the screen in one of her best, if not so well-known performances as the venomous Hollywood agent who eats television studio executives for breakfast. There is also a wonderful turn by impressionist Rich Little as Johnny Carson, but it is primarily a fascinating story and the powerhouse performance by Bates that make this one worth checking out.

I don't understand why everyone hates this movie, aside from the fact that they're just jealous their music careers never took off like mega Popstar Aaron Carter. Like it or not Aaron has seen more success in his young life than most people could ever dream of having, so it only seemed natural for him to do a movie. Lou Pearlman and company have been known for over-exploiting their pop protégées, you remember Justin Timberlake's foray into TV movie Model Behavior? Granted this movie isn't big scale and impressive, but it's not supposed to be. It's not trying to impress people or be an Emmy award winner, it was released straight to DVD. It's just a cute little movie about an awkward teen who gets her dream of being with her favorite Popstar; I know a lot of you out there have had that dream at some point or another about you favorite singer, don't deny it. It's sweet and gentle and I applaud it for not stepping into the realm of sex, violence, and vulgar language that seem to be creeping into more and more of our movies today. Where's the decency? Where's the line? Teen dramas come in dozens these days because teens are a big market for companies, at least this one is more tolerable to me than Bratz (aka Slutz) with all the fake little girls running around going 'Oh Mah Gawd!' in tank tops and mini skirts and is fathoms better than those gore fest movies like Saw. I feel for the main character girl because I was nerdy outcast girl in High School who loved Aaron Carter and NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys and other pop music and still do; and like Aaron's character would get crushing 'testophobia', especially in Math. If you judge this movie solely based on the fact that you don't like or are jealous of Aaron Carter and his fame, then of course you're going to hate it and trash talk it in reviews. The only reason Britney Spears' dribble Crossroads got a higher score is because she has boobs. Accept this movie for what it is, not what you want it to be. I think this happy formulaic teen movie ends on a high note and makes you want to sing.

Ordinarily I really enjoy movies like 'Chances Are,' but I wasn't quite satisfied with this one for a few reasons. The first half was pretty well done overall, with Alex Finch dying and being reincarnated in a new body (played by Robert Downey Jr.). He meets up with his wife (Cybill Shepherd) and friend (Ryan O'Neal) and his daughter, who is now grown up. The scenes with them meeting again and Downey rediscovering who he once was are well done, and there is a good amount of emotion and happiness once Shepherd finally believes its really her husband reincarnated, but from there the film goes downhill. There are several sex-related scenes that turned me off completely, especially Downey and Shepherd wanting to get together again despite the difference in their age now. After that, however, the film manages to end in the most satisfying way possible, considering the circumstances of the plot. I was disappointed because I did not expect the film to become so immoral by the end. There was great potential with this story, and the scenes in heaven are well done. There is a good theme song sung by Peter Cetera and Cher, but ultimately the film is not great. For a better, similar film, try 'Heaven Can Wait.' Decent, but I really kind of wish I hadn't seen it because of the scenes in the second half.<br /><br />*** out of ****

You can only describe this with one word and that would be WOW!!! Wow, I really did not think piece of crap like this could ever be released. If you watch a movie titled ninja then you expect to see at least some cool martial artists, right? However, none of these guys know any martial arts whatsoever and it seems like they went to china and picked the first people they saw on the street and trained them for a day in martial arts, that's the level of their martial arts skills! The actors are way overacting, the special effects are ridiculous and there is not any plot that makes any sense. This is the worst martial arts movie I've ever seen and I have seen plenty!

I saw a version of this in a 4 DVD Mafia collection put out by Brentwood and I have to admit that it was a good film. The quality was a little worse for the wear, but it was a well acted and realistic drama involving low level New Jersey gangsters. Pesci once again though, steels the show!

Ah the sci-fi channel. How often do you disappoint me? Quite often I think, do you ever show good movies? OK you have given me the great 'Heroes' and the reasonably good 'The Lost Room' but they are series, and as for the movie well there really is nothing positive to say. Bad acting, bad directing, terrible characters and a shallow story, and that is just for starters. I checked out the director Allan A Goldstien and was not surprised to find nothing of interest in his resume (in fact I am half thinking that this is a pseudo name). The premises of four motor bikers out motto-crossing in a national park when one of them has an accident that needs a park ranger to come rescue them only for them to get caught in a forrest fire is weak and predictable that you know every beat before it happens. Leading man Bryan Genesse the park ranger is so bad it is terrible. Cast as the action hero martial arts boy in the footsteps of so many others this guy makes Seagal and Van Damme look like De Nero. The supporting cast are little better and well before the end one was left hoping the fire would engulf them all then the film crew. Avoid at all costs

No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler`s father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler`s childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler`s fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party 'philosopher' Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl`s own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his 'Fuehrer'. But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.

There are way too many subjects avoided in cinema and eating disorders is one of them. This film shows it as it is. It is not glamourised for the viewers to enjoy, it is shown with real truth which makes it all the more powerful. I've only seen it once and that was a few years ago but i can still remember everything about it and how it made me feel. It is a very powerful film and is good support for anyone suffering from a eating disorder to give them the willpower to stop. This is what films should be about- they should be there to help people and not glamourise things that are wrong.

Orson Welles manages to knock me on my ass with every picture of his I see. Lady of Shanghai is on the same level as his other masterpieces, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight. The plot can tend to be confusing sometimes, and sometimes it seems to be moving maybe a tiny bit too fast (about an hour of it was edited out when test screenings went poorly). It doesn't matter, however. You can't watch Welles' films and manage to concentrate too much on the plot. His direction defines what great direction is. Almost any scene from this film can hold up with any other scene he directed. Check out the courtroom scene. Usually they are such stock scenes that I can't stand them. Case in point, try to sit through Welles' own speech near the end of Compulsion. In Lady from Shanghai, just pay attention to the level of detail in that courtroom scene. Watch that juror who is always sneezing and interrupting the proceedings. Or just take a look at the lighting in that scene. I know, it is just a simple Venetian blind, and that it was used constantly in film noirs and crime films of the era, but Welles gives it a beauty all its own. The dialogue is also remarkable. Welles had the skill, a skill that no one else seemed to have, to make a crime film containing examples of the grandest poetry. Whether he was speaking Shakespeare or spitting out hard-boiled lines, it had the power to stir the soul. 10/10.

The French film 'Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte' directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as 'Whatever'.This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists.

First off, I dislike almost all Neil Simon movies. But there is something about this that is unique, that draws me in, and I would say it is among the most entertaining comedies I have seen. The second time I watched it, the connection was clear. When did Neil Simon meet my grandmothers? <br /><br />Ah, afraid they might sue, so he changed them into men. And how dull would it be if they were only housewives, show biz stars is more fun. Well this is a personal review, and my still living grandmother at age 97 (she even outlived Walter Matthau's magnificent impersonation of her!)would deny it -- but some of you must find resonance in these characters.<br /><br />Secondly, I have little tolerance for George Burns, but somehow he turned in one of the finest supporting performances I can recall (and my late grandmother even enjoyed it, although failing to recognize the remarkable similarities she shared with the film character).<br /><br />Very ethnic in flavor, and over the top, you will either laugh and laugh or turn this off. For me, the pleasure lingers.

VERY memorable comedy. It's fun to watch the many situations develop and finally converge after a long journey on that greatest collection of eclectic humanity (and the world's largest honky-tonk) - the great American Freeway. Like '...mad, mad world' it's got loads of contemporary talent, old-boy politics, good comedic action and dialog. Unlike that one it is the target that seeks, not the unwitting seekers - they have no idea what they really want as they drift along America's great road. Nor does it carry the weight of having a great fall guy who is saved only in the end by a great belly-laugh. But the ending stunt sequence is nothing short of spectacular with excellent film editing, humor and timing, and the big city bank scene is hilarious with very original acting by one very talented character in particular. The total aplomb of the city dwellers in the face of chaos leaves one feeling like the proverbial fly on the ceiling. The slapstick is funny, but Honky Tonk Freeway deserves to be heard and seen closely because it is surprisingly loaded with nuance and character reactions that are easily missed. All in all a very funny reflection of who we were and are, good or bad, and the goofy situations we find ourselves in. It was just meant to be FUNNY and it is!

This is the first American film I have seen at this year and I think it will be the greatest one because of the feeling . As a teenage singer in America,Aaron is not as pop as before,most Americans I met said his song is fake and that he even didn't know how to rap.But attention,everyone,he is a kid,how many people can understand him.Being a pop fan is difficult,and being a pop star is more difficult.I think this time Aaron(JD) has shows something real to us.And I think people should learn to understand each other. At another hand,I like the music in the film very much.I remember the first song appeared in the film is 'Saturday Night' and it also include some Aaron's real live show,And the second one is 'One Better',so I think if you enjoy this film,maybe you'll be a pop fan,too. At last,I hope you will have a great time^^ A voice from a Chinese boy.

Intense domestic suspense with the mistress of the house (Lupino, excellent as always) threatened by a psychotic migrant housecleaner (Ryan). The 2 masters of the genre are at their heady, erotic best as they match wits, emotions, and wills in a bizarre hostage situation right out of the Saturday Evening Post. Richly hued B & W photography with an unusual amount of close-up head shots. The young girl who teases Ryan is really well directed here. Improbable, but satisfying suburban melodrama.

It's painfully clear that all effort in this film was directed toward cinematography and very little attention to everything else. Most obvious mistake is the miscast of the entire female cast. Many of them are very experienced and capable, but they all seemed out of place, and having an amateur director certainly didn't help. The story is a very common Geisha story, and characters behaved very inconsistently, thus making it extremely difficult for me to connect with the heroine. <br /><br />This movie's theme is 'modern prostitution', but still, it was annoying how Tsuchiya Anna's lead character kept talking like a female motorcycle gang member while everyone else spoke in old Japanese fitting for this setting. This movie has very beautiful vibrant colors, similar to Zhang Yimou's 'Hero', but viewers can easily tell it's filmed in a cheap, elaborate set.<br /><br />The two sequences with Shiina Ringo's insert songs were really nice though, in mid-section of the movie. I actually really disliked her music before, but they fit perfectly in this movie. Although Ninagawa Mika is a complete failure as a film director, she has a major potential in PV (music video) production.<br /><br />I believe the story felt very plain because the director failed to focus on character development, and because Tsuchiya Anna's unconvincing acting as an Oiran. Had this film been directed by a known Jidaigeki director with any other known actress in Japan, it would've had the potential to become a masterpiece.

The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called 'McCinsey's Island'. A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump 'Guest House Paradiso' to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.<br /><br />Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show 'Bottom', this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.<br /><br />I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like 'Trainspotting', '28 Days Later', 'Four Weddings And A Funeral' and the brilliant 'Shaun Of The Dead' (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. 'Guest House Paradiso' is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. 'I'm watching this so they don't have to' became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.<br /><br />Trust me, I used to love the 'Bottom' TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's 'Drop Dead Fred' seem like 'The Godfather' and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such.

This one reeler produced by MGM in 1936 showcases the talents of two of its young stars under contract, Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin. In a way, these short films were promotional trailers that featured new talent in front, or behind the camera. Felix Feist directed this one which was a way to promote the two talented stars to the public.<br /><br />The story is simple enough. The orchestra that entertains in a public park every Sunday doesn't get the attention it deserves. Enter two music aficionados, Judy and Edna, who love to hear the band play conducted by one of their grandfathers. Two of the town's elders sensing there is no public for this type of entertainment have decided to cancel their Sunday concerts in favor of a more popular orchestra that will attract a wider audience.<br /><br />The two girls embark in a promotional tour of their own doing what they only know, calling and running errands and being helpful to their neighbors in exchange for a promise they will attend the park concert next Sunday. Well, that day comes, and to their surprise, hardly anyone comes as the music starts. The two girls decide to take matters into their own and ask the conductor to play a song for them to sing. The result is clear, people all over the park flocks to hear the talented young singers, thus ensuring the orchestra's existence.<br /><br />Of course, the only attraction of the short film is the inspired singing by the two stars who are wonderful in their rendition. Ms. Durbin's operatic voice blends well with Ms. Garland's natural one creating a lovely duet.<br /><br />Don't miss it whenever it shows on TCM!

This movie is dated in so many ways, it's sensational. You can either laugh at it or shake your fists in rage.<br /><br />This movie deals with many problems of American history, but with the typical white-male-Christian-American paternalism: The main character is one of those I-can-do-it-all-and-you've-got-to-love-me-for-it-kind-of-guy. He is so pompous and not to be taken serious at any time. What a horrid creature! His wife is a weak little woman for the first part of the movie and a still very weepy, but stronger character in the end. Too bad she still forgives his cocky ways after he's left her for the second time. It's just sad that the character didn't really change at all. Even though she is supposed to portray a strong and independent woman in the end, she is consumed by worry about her adventure-seeking husband. So 2 out of 10 points from the feminists among us (and those are only for the good intentions...)! The problem of Indian suppression is dealt with quite nicely, but there is that patronizing story-telling again. And the fact that all African-American characters are the typical stereotypes makes the movie even more hypocritical. I was so enraged most of the time! So one point (for trying) from the civil rights movement.<br /><br />I know, that the movie was done at a different time. I love old movies and I have a lot of patience with some of those dated point of views. But this was just disgusting!<br /><br />What saves this movie are the parts without the main character. Mr Dix's acting is way over the top and smug. Maybe that's why his character is so disagreeable... I liked Mrs Dunne's performance, even though her character enraged me at times. <br /><br />But I must say the famous land rush scene was incredibly done. And the way that the Oklahoma settlement was portrayed made the movie worthwhile. It's just amazing how civilization rose out of the dirt and dust of the 19th century. And I don't understand the problem some have with that church scene. I thought it was quite funny and amusing. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be, but I liked it. So 9 points for those scenes and the impressive storytelling of the development of the Oklahoma state. That makes about 4 points altogether!

Yes, as the other reviewers have already stated, this may not be vintage L&H but it's far from being their worst work as at 20th Century Stupid...I mean Fox. This film certainly has all of the basic ingredients for things to go wrong for the boys. But it's their serious approach and determination that makes them funny. They don't play it for laughs as other comedians might but they take their work and situation quite seriously and that is the essence of their eternal humor. In this film, they are faced with some basic issues that really might be encountered by any one of us today, namely job related stress. First, we would get checked out by a doctor and he would prescribe some much needed rest and perhaps staying by the sea. That's where the surrealness comes in to all of this. L&H always take a most plausible set of circumstances and exaggerate it but never to the point of being incredible, except maybe once in awhile. This makes us laugh because we can relate to their self caused predicaments and attempts at extrication. That's what makes Stan and Ollie universal in their appeal. In this film all those ingredients are presented in a delightfully artful and gracefully slapstick way. Not their best in comparison to their earlier work probably because this was the actual last film they did for Roach because he wanted to mirror the 'big' studios and go into making features exclusively and also wanted to hurry up and finish their contractual obligation. BIG MISTAKE! They should have all stayed together and continued for maybe five more years. What the world may have missed in their not considering this as an option. Watch, laugh, and enjoy this as their last great performance.

I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed that the 428 of you IMDB users who voted before me have not given this film a rating of higher than 7. 7?!?? - that's a C!. If I could give FOBH a 20, I'd gladly do it. This film ranks high atop the pantheon of modern comedy, alongside Half Baked and Mallrats, as one of the most hilarious films of all time. If you know _anything_ about rap music - YOU MUST SEE THIS!! If you know nothing about rap music - learn something!, and then see this! Comparisons to 'Spinal Tap' fail to appreciate the inspired genius of this unique film. If you liked Bob Roberts, you'll love this. Watch it and vote it a 10!

I loved it. I had just sat through half of 'The Glass House' (turned it off...god what a morass of predictable plot and bad acting) and then I saw this movie. I thought it was terrific. Loved both Cameron Diaz and Jordana Brewster in it. I liked the escapism of the whole setting, the traveling around Europe in the 60's thing - yet they made it more realistic by showing the dark side and all of the bad things that could happen. It held my attention completely, even if I did think that parts were unbelievable.

This 2004 Oscar nominee is a very short b/w film in Spanish. A young woman goes into a café, gets a coffee, and notices a couple of musicians standing silently with their instruments. All the patrons are motionless, like mannequins. One guy, however, is quite jolly and breaks into a song about what goes on at 7:35 in the morning. There is one surprising moment after another until the end which is quite, well, surprising. The people, the place, everything looks quite ordinary. And like the musical piece 'Bolero', the thing keeps building until the climax. With its structure, theme,movement and wit,it is an 8 minute masterpiece.

Just finished watching, can't say I was impressed.<br /><br />It starts of quite good, the visual and the atmosphere gives a creepy feeling as this type of movie should. But it all ends when the first lordi monster appears. Not only do you recognize them from the band lordi, but they are seriously malplaced in the movie. Doomsday monsters with leather jackets and piercings are so 80's.<br /><br />As for the storyline, it starts of as similar horror movies, people trapped inside a hell hole. But there is no clear story on why and what is happening. The viewer is thrown some lines on possible reasons, but the lines never meet and end up to anything but a mess.<br /><br />With all the money spent on this film, with an intriguing start and some good effects, I had thought someone would have taken better care of the product. I wonder if lordi made this movie just to prove that their show costumes could be scary (except they aren't).<br /><br />So the movie gets cred for the visuals, i guess the money had to go somewhere. But the rest is an embarrassing attempt from a rock band to make their on-stage monster aliases scarier.

Tho 35 years old, Groove Tube looks a lot like actual TV today! Specialty niche networks (nude sports), a TV show about stoner drug dealers called the Dealers (ala Weeds, and even predating 1978's Cheech & Chong Up In Smoke), weird beer commercials (Butz Beer, no less bizarre than Bud Bowls), dirty-minded kid's clown Koko (shades of Pee Wee Herman), even Chevy Chase doing slapstick humor (a violent barbershop vocal duo) a year before his 1975 debut on Saturday Night Live. And thanks to the infamous opening sequence that earned Groove Tube an initial X-rating, I still can't hear Curtis Mayfield's 'Move On Up' without thinking of naked dancing hitchhiking hippies ---- For similar sketch-style movies, see TunnelVision, Kentucky Fried Movie, Amazon Women on the Mood, Monty Python's Beyond the Fringe, Dynamite Chicken, and the Firesign Theatre's Everything You Know is Wrong.

This was usually producer Alexander Korda's advice on set to many of his underlings; the film is credited with three directors but in truth Alex, Zoltan Korda and William Cameron Menzies helped out, pushing it to six.<br /><br />For John Kobal's 1987 book, 'The Top 100 Movies', his survey of 81 film critics saw The Thief of Bagdad reach 55th place. A closer examination reveals only Jose Luis Guarner, John Russell Taylor and Kobal himself actually voted for the picture, but their high placings were enough to take it to near the half-way mark.<br /><br />The outbreak of the Second World War saw the movie's production shifted around England and America, eventually seeing completion in 1940 and winning three technical Oscars. Like Citizen Kane, it is in some ways perhaps a film you might admire rather than love.<br /><br />The special effects, outstanding for the time, are still reasonable, and actually hold up if you squint. But it's not so much their effectiveness as the audacity of the inventions. Among them is an amusing horse, constructed out of a kit model, which, when a key is inserted up it's rear end, begins to fly. There's also a killer toy of the six-armed Goddess Kali, (perhaps quite obviously a single woman with two women sitting behind her) and a quite horrific-looking giant spider. Also impressing is the climax with its wonderful flying carpet. But most memorable has to be Rex Ingram appearing as, in a superb moment of cinematic conceit, a djinn (genie) nearly a thousand feet tall! Ingram portrays the genie as quite a menacing creature, and adds an element of danger to the proceedings. And look out for the moment where he's tricked back into his bottle!<br /><br />John Justin does well as the Arabic king who, for some strange reason, has an English accent and a stiff upper lip. Sabu, the astonishingly muscled 15–year-old, is near-namesake Abu, a likeably cocky thief. After they cross paths with the evil Jaffer (Conrad Veidt), Justin finds himself blind and Abu is turned into a dog. When it seems the rest of the film will be told in flashback through the blind Ahmed's (Justin's) perspective, we find that halfway through the movie we catch up to the present and the adventure continues. In truth, the second half is someway the better, being full of greater incident and more fantastical in nature.<br /><br />Three small songs pepper the piece, though as the film lasts for 100 minutes this feels more like mild flavouring rather than a real ingredient; I wouldn't classify this as a musical. It's all great fun; Justin and June Duprez are the love interest for the mums and dads, Veidt is the boo-hiss villain, and Abu is the youthful, irrepressible robber. It may take a while to get into the somewhat dated mindset and overblown melodrama of 40s English movies, but once you've sat through the first half an hour or so this film really draws you in. Quite commendable.

A very promising directorial debut for Bill Paxton. A very dark thriller/who-really-done-it recommended by Stephen King. This is a strong, well-conceived horror tale about a devout, but demented man in Thurman, Texas that goes on a murdering spree after getting orders from God to eliminate demons trying to control mankind. A couple of plot twists and an eerie finale makes for your moneys worth. Most of the violence you don't really see, but still enough to double up your stomach.<br /><br />Director Paxton plays the twisted man to be known as the Hand of God Killer. Matthew McConaughey is equally impressive as the demented man's eldest son that ends up telling this story to a Dallas FBI Agent(Powers Boothe). Boothe, as always, is solid and flawless. Suspenseful white knuckler! Highly recommended.

There really wasn't much of a story in this film. It loosely based itself off the events in the first Lion King movie. It is supposed to be how Timon and Pumbaa met via their aloneness. But there isn't much more than that.<br /><br />It mixes some scenes from the original, then it ab-libs about how this movie changed them a little bit. But still, is that it? I was hoping for something a little more. Instead, all I have to show for it is an empty plot with little explanation.<br /><br />I guess if you wanted to see other meerkats in the Lion King universe, then this is it. But other than that, it does little justice for the animators. Disney really should stop these direct-to-video productions. It really was quite boring and could have used Jason Statham. 'D-'

'Pixote: A Lei do Mais Fraco' deals with what is perhaps the greatest of all Brazilian themes: poverty. And along with poverty the other unnatural feelings and actions it brings; prostitution, violence, crime, rape and murder.<br /><br />Brazil is the country of paradoxes, and its social problems are present everywhere. The difference between the rich and the poor; the beautiful and the ugly; happiness and the most profound human decay.<br /><br />'Pixote' is one of the films that dare to touch and open these so painful wounds, and does it without the slightest glimmer of hope, in an honest portrayal of a country that, like Pixote himself, is already lost.

Giorgino can to some people look a bit long but it's one of rare real romantique adventure film. It could be compare to Docter Jivago with a bit of Sleepy Holow. You must see it.

During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits.

Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.<br /><br />The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.<br /><br />No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.<br /><br />Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.<br /><br />Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.<br /><br />BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line 'Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup'. If this wasn't enough the reply is 'C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy.' Laurel & Hardy rest in piece.

Yes 1939/Robert Donat-Greer Garson version was the best...Perfection..Donat won the Oscar in a very tough year..Gable in GWTW & James Stewart as Mr. Smith. were 2 of his competitors. .wow was that a rough year.. Most critics in NY hated this version. so.didnt see in theatre! Finally saw this A.M. on TCM & enjoyed..Peter O'Toole was excellent & glad he was Oscar nominated for this,,& esp pleased Oscar finally gave him a special award this past year... Petula Clark was good as Mrs. Chips but her character,i feel was poorly written...Some good songs esp. You & I... sung by Ms.Clark & later recorded by many others including T.Bennett/S. Bassey & Carmen MacRae.... the b&w version was more authentic.. but this is a good film beautifully photographed in color & panavision... enjoyable worth seeing & Bravo, again, Mr. O'Toole!

C.H.O.M.P.S. is very much like any number of cheesy late 70s Disney family comedys-The Cat from Outer Space or Unidentified Flying Oddball, for instance. Utterly devoid of anything creative, beating the same cliches to death, yet vaguely entertaining in a mindless sort of way. The actors won't win any awards, nor will the director, writer, or FX crew, but in its inoffensive ness and bland predicatability there is some vague entertainment to be had. The idea of the robot dog as security system is so full of holes you could use it as a colander. The incredibly repetative disco soundtrack will stick in your head, so beware.

One of the most pleasant surprises of this early 3-strip Technicolor short was that a ballet dancer that appears here was named Maria Gambarelli! I half wondered if Blake Edwards was naming the character played by Elke Sommer in A Shot in the Dark after this now-forgotten performer (though the spelling of the Sommer character's surname was actually Gambrelli). I watched this on YouTube mainly to see an early Judy Garland appearance as we watch her in profile with her two older sisters singing 'La Cucaracha'. That was the highlight for me which otherwise showed some dances (like that of Ms. Gambarelli) that were enjoyable and some lame comedy between Andy Devine as a great bull-fighter (yeah, right!) and Buster Keaton as a bull owner who provides one that is obviously a man in animal costume. Only funny part of those two is when they cry-with Buster providing handkerchief to 'bull'-during the sad part of 'La Cucaracha'. Also lame was seeing Ted Healy without his stooges dealing with a crasher who keeps mistaking Healy for other movie stars. (Healy himself didn't know Zeppo had left The Marx Brothers since he puts 'Four' between 'The' and 'Marx'!) Speaking of a Marx, it was interesting seeing Harpo without his wig though he is wearing a hat to hide his bald head. Also interesting was seeing Ida Lupino among the cowgirls in the beginning though I also recognized Toby Wing from her part in Murder at the Vanities last year (at least when announcer Pete Smith identified her). Oh, and Smith himself wasn't funny with his wise-guy narration. Other famous stars you may or may not recognize are also in cameos and not all are M-G-M contract players either! So with all that said, La fiesta de Santa Barbara is worth a look for anyone curious about Judy Garland's early film appearances or the early use of 3-strip Technicolor.

I was expecting 'Born to Kill' to be an exciting, high-tension film noir. Instead, it's got two good action set-pieces (one at the beginning and one at the end) and some marvelously atmospheric cinematography by Robert de Grasse (usually a 'glamor' cameraman and a surprising credit for a noir), but the rest of the film is pretty boring. Lawrence Tierney goes through his psycho kick but it's a strictly by-the-numbers performance, mechanically churning out what the audience expected from him after 'Dillinger' (an overrated movie but at least better than this). Claire Trevor's character is too stupid and unmotivated to have any audience appeal, and the action (such as it is) stays so resolutely inside that damned house in San Francisco the film becomes claustrophobic instead of genuinely thrilling. It's one of those movies in which the supporting players -- notably Elisha Cook, Jr. (whose character's homoerotic itch for Tierney's is one of the few subtleties in an otherwise pretty obvious script) and Isabel Jewell -- out-act the leads. It also doesn't help that, nearly half a century after Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins revolutionized the depiction of psycho killers on the screen in 'Psycho,' Tierney's is so gross and obvious he might as well have 'PSYCHO' tattooed on his forehead. Also, there's no indication in the film as it stands as to why the source novel was called 'Deadlier than the Male' -- but perhaps James Gunn made the female characters stronger and more interesting than they are in the film. 'Born to Kill' is a real disappointment from Robert Wise, who already had some quality movies under his belt and would go on to a stellar career.

This movie was really funny. The people that were expecting to see an Oscar worthy comedy, should get over themselves. This was a fun movie to see with interesting and funny characters, plot lines, dialog quotes and catch phrases. I rate a movie a 10 if I have bought the DVD, or in this case, the videotape, and have watched it many times, and in this case, still laugh out loud. I have about 12 movies in my collection with a rating of 10 and about half don't have anything do do with the Oscars. Again, this was just a fun, light-hearted movie. I hope this comes out on DVD. I highly suggest checking this movie out, if you are in the mood for a wacky comedy.

As a veteran of many, many pretentious French films I thought I'd taken the worst the industry had to offer and was able to stomach anything. But not this. Pointless, relentless, violent, unpleasant, meaningless ... The film has nothing to offer and is random hatred and aggression dressed up as pretentious art. Avoid at all costs.

There are few movies that have the massive amount of non stop ninja action as Ninja III: the Domination. This is a story of love, redemption and revenge, however, this is mainly a story about flipping out and killing people for no reason at all. If you've been searching for a movie where a ninja goes absolutely nuts and takes all kinds of people to their graves just because he's a ninja and he can do it, this is the movie for you. I can't think of any movies to compare this to, because no movie is this awesome. Wait, oh, have you ever seen the thing with two heads? There is a part in that where the titular thing is riding around on a motorcycle and about a million cop cars are chasing it/them around, but they keep crashing and what not BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CATCH THE THING WITH TWO HEADS!!! Well, that is kind of what Ninja III is like. I highly recommend this film especially if you like the following things: Ninjas, swords, Lucinda Dickie from Breakin' and Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, video games about being a bouncer in a bar, ambiguous and underdeveloped love stories or 'good' ninjas.

Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better.

I waited quite awhile till I was able to watch this Lone Ranger movie. I finally got to see it on the Lone Star Channel today and was very disappointed in the whole movie. Clayton Moore and John Hart acted better Lone Rangers and Jay Silverheels as Tonto, than the two stars in this movie. Very poor acting was done by everyone in this movie. Even the plot was bad and far fetching. I believe the horse, portraying Silver was the best actor throughout this movie.I am glad I didn't go out and buy a copy of this movie when it first came out, as I feel it's a waste of good money. I am truly sorry the characters that Clayton Moore, John Hart and Jay Silverheels played, and brought to life on the silver screen, have been tarnished so badly. Unless in the future, they find actors worthy of portraying the characters in the same manner which Clayton, John and Jay did so well in the past, I'll not spend the money to buy the movie. I'll not watch this movie again.<br /><br />Wayne Davies

Nothing about this movie stands out as either being great or terrible.<br /><br />In the end, that is what kills it. The blandness is just not good. I can't say I expected better from Will Smith, but I definitely did from Kevin James of 'The King of Queens'-- but, hey, I'm getting used to saying that a lot lately. This film attempts to make its mark as a witty romantic comedy, but it never hits the bull's-eye. In fact, it never hits *anywhere* within the target. The allergy scene is disturbing; the fact that Kevin James can't dance is something that wouldn't exactly catch anybody off-guard, and is therefore (in a movie like this) not funny. This movie constantly tries to win your heart, but always with the wrong ploy at the wrong time. Some parts are okay (but I'm searching my brain for examples), but I really think this movie should be avoided.

MY LEFT FOOT, in my opinion, is a great biopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters. The performances were smashing, the soundtrack was great, and the casting was perfect. I thought that Christy (Daniel Day-Lewis) was a very talented man, although I couldn't understand what he was saying most of the time. In addition, when he threw a tantrum, I got a little scared. Also, it's just so sad that he suffered from cerebral palsy. In conclusion, if you are a die-hard fan of Daniel Day-Lewis or like biopics, I highly recommend this great biopic about one of the world's most talented authors and painters. You're in for a real treat and a good time, so don't miss this one.

I loved the way EARTH is made. Its photography is unbelievable, editing it must have been an interesting challenge and Patrick Stewart's voice over is PERFECT. In addition its music and sound editing make watching EARTH a profound experience you don't want to miss. You really are on a journey to where you would probably never-ever end up by yourself. <br /><br />And although, at first, I was quite surprised by the laughter of the audience as we see animals in their daily fight for survival, I could not help laughing myself sometimes. Nature simply seems too impressive to comprehend.<br /><br />But, rather than the need to laugh, I left the cinema with a profound question:'Howcome 200 years of industrial revolution can destroy natural systems that have been here for thousands and thousands of years?'<br /><br />With this question in mind, you'll understand how I felt somewhat bitter and powerless after seeing EARTH. I felt the immediate need to change the world, to help all these animals in their struggle, to undo the changes we have gone through the last centuries and to stop the global heating at once (all that not being a NGO activist at all!)...<br /><br />So I immediately visited the website mentioned at the end of the film to see what I could do to save our -still- fantastic planet (and the polar bear) from its depressing fate... (www.loveearth.com)<br /><br />I was a little disappointed to find no direct answers to my questions there. Yet it was very interesting to find out more about the film and the struggle its crew went through.<br /><br />I hope that cutting on my energy-use will do. I don't know how else to shorten the distance polar bears have to swim to reach land before they drown or attack animals they cannot beat in their exhausted state...<br /><br />An inspiring film it is, but I didn't leave the cinema feeling very happy.

If this documentary had not been made by the famous French director, Louis Malle, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15 minutes, as it was an incredibly dull look at a very ordinary Midwestern American town in 1979. This is not exactly my idea of a fun topic and the film footage closely resembled a collection of home movies. Considering I didn't know any of these people, it was even less interesting.<br /><br />Because it was a rather dull slice of life style documentary, I wondered while watching what was the message they were trying to convey? Perhaps it was that values aren't as conservative as you might think--this was an underlying message through many of the vignettes (such as the Republicans whose son was a draft resister as well as the man and lady who thought sex outside of marriage was just fine). Or, perhaps the meaning was that there was a lot of bigotry underlying the nice home town--as several ugly ideas such as blaming Jews for financial conspiracies, anti-Black bigotry and homophobia all were briefly explored.<br /><br />The small town of 1979 was explored in great depth and an idyllic sort of world was portrayed, but when the film makers returned six years later, the mood was depressed thanks to President Reagan. This seemed very disingenuous for several reasons. First, the 1979 portion was almost 90% of the film and the final 10% only consisted of a few interviews of people that blamed the president for just about everything but acne. What about the rest of the folks of this town? Did they all see Reagan as evil or that their lives had become more negative? With only a few updates, it seemed suspicious. Second, while it is true that the national debt doubled in the intervening years, so did the gross national product. And, while Malle shows 1979 as a very optimistic period, it was far from that, as the period from 1974-1980 featured many shortages (gas, sugar, etc.), strikes, high inflation and general malaise. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan because government growth did NOT slow during his administration, the country, in general, was far more optimistic than it had been in the Ford and Carter years. While many in the media demonized Reagan (a popular sport in the 80s), the economy improved significantly and the documentary seems very one-sided and agenda driven. Had the documentary given a more thorough coverage of 1985 and hadn't seemed too negative to be believed (after all, everyone didn't have their lives get worse--this defies common sense), then I might have thought otherwise.<br /><br />Overall, not the wonderful documentary some have proclaimed it to be--ranging from a dull film in 1979 to an extremely slanted look at 1985.<br /><br />By the way, is it just me, or does the film DROP DEAD GORGEOUS seem to have been inspired, at least in part, by this film? Both are set in similar communities, but the latter film was a hilarious mockumentary without all the serious undertones.

I saw the film tonight at a free preview screening, and despite the fact that I didn't pay a dime to see this film I still felt ripped off. Ladies and gentlemen, time is money and if you see this film you are leaving a Benjamin on your seat. The acting is torpid at best; Kiefer Sutherland phones in his worst impersonation of Jack Bauer, and Michael Douglas looks like he realizes he made a bad choice leaving Catherine Zeta-Jones for the duration it took to shoot this turkey. Eva Longoria is a non-entity; she looks like she's reading her lines off a teleprompter. And if you can't spot the 'mole' within the first 20 minutes, then you just landed on this planet from a world without TV and recycled story lines. If you truly want to see a good secret service thriller, rent In the Line of Fire. If you see and buy into this one, you'll start to fear for the president's safety because the Secret Service looks and acts like the grown-up versions of the kinds from 90210. No matter what your feelings about W, let's hope this 'art' does not imitate life.