Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

The jazz soundtrack makes this seem like a Clint Eastwood movie.<br /><br />In fact the whole thing strikes me as Burt doing Clint. The story is good and the movie is full of one liners that I carry with me to this day. (Reynolds to bad guy: I'm gonna pull the chain on you pal, because you're f'n up my town. And you wanna know the worst part? You're from outta state!)<br /><br />Highlights: The Technics 1500B reel to reel is nice set dressing for audiophiles!<br /><br />Charles Durning coming unglued while listening to wiretap tapes of prostitutes having (sort of) phone sex. (You'd have to see it, trust me, it's hilarious.)<br /><br />Brian Keith plays against type as a tough guy. (And does it well!)<br /><br />Bernie Casie's preoccupation with Zen.<br /><br />Rachel Ward. WOW! (Where'd she go?)<br /><br />Doc Severinsen and the Tonight Show band play their rears off as usual. (Joe William's guests on vocals. Manhattan Transfer re-recorded 'Route 66'.) The soundtrack lends class to the whole affair.<br /><br />Need I say more? It might be Reynold's best film ever. <br /><br />(Yeah, he plays himself, as usual, but it works!)<br /><br />Enjoy!

A beautiful movie, especially if you like horses,WWII films and the austere Hungarian Plateau.A story of courage, compassion and loyalty that transcends generations. The horsemanship is spectacular as well as the main characters' horse in his own training.<br /><br />I will buy this movie and watch it again. This is a family film and I recommend it highly.A good ''Family Nite'' movie. Although there are some violent scenes, it was the Nazi occupation of Hungary.The native people were very interesting in the way they stood their ground even in the face of certain death from a Nazi officer who had his own personal reasons for hunting down Brady.A hauntingly beautiful film.

I went to see Vanilla Sky with a huge, huge, huge!!..Tom Cruise fan, my extremely cynical brother and my girlfriend ... what can I say .. I was totally blown away by the movie and especially TC's performance, I thought it was a very moving film and it was not at all what I was expecting.<br /><br />I had read the reviews and had decided not to go and see it, I am so pleased that I was 'coerced 'into seeing it. The strange thing is I cannot say why, all I can say is that I found it totally involving and could not stop thinking about it the next day. As to what I felt about the film, all I can say about is, ITS NOT THE STORYLINE (fantasy, psychodrama, whatever) its about the people and the events that shape their life and how small events, like getting into a car can change everything......<br /><br />As to what the critics wrote, yes maybe the original was a stunning 2nd film for Alejandro Amenábar , but this was a totally different interpretation of the subject, and by no means a narcissistic remake for the benefit of Tom Cruise and Penelope Cruz.<br /><br />I cannot even consider writing a couple of trite, glib sentences to describe the film just go and see it!!!!<br /><br />Yes I know this isn't a balanced thoughtful review but so what .It's not that kind of film.

I Last night I had the pleasure of seeing the movie BUG at the Florida Film Festival and let me say it was a real treat. The Directors were there and they did a Q&A afterwards. The movie begins with a young boy smashing a roach beneath his foot, a man who is nearby parking his car sees the young boy smash it and runs to ask the kid `why? why? did he have to kill that living creature?' in his rush to counsel the youth in the error of his ways, the man neglects to pay his parking meter, which starts off a whole chain of events involving people not at all related to him, some funny, some sad, and some ridiculous. This movie has a lot of laughs, Lots! and there are many actors which you will recognize. The main actors who stood out in the film for me were: Jamie Kennedy (from his comedy show the Jamie Kennedy Experiment, playing a fortune cookie writer; John Carroll Lynch (who plays Drew's cross dressing brother on the Drew Carey show) playing the animal loving guy who just can't get it right; Brian Cox (The original Hannibal Lecter in Manhunter) playing the germaphobic owner of a Donut and Chinese Food Take Out joint. There is one line where Cox tells his chef to wash off some pigs blood that is on the sidewalk by saying 'clean up that death' which is quite funny mostly because of Cox's 'obsessed with germs' delivery. The funniest moment in the movie comes when a young boy imitates his father, whom he heard earlier in the day yell out `MotherF*****', while in the classroom. Another extremely funny and surreal scene is when Trudie Styler (Mrs. Sting herself) and another actor perform a scene on a cable access show, from the film the boy in the plastic bubble. The actor who hosts the cable access show is just amazing he is so serious and deadpan and his performance as both the doctor and the boy in the plastic bubble is enthralling. There are many other fine and funny actors and actresses in this film and having shot it in less than a month with a budget of just about $1 million, the directors Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi (who are screenwriters by trade, having written crazy/beautiful and the upcoming Tuxedo starring Jackie Chan) have achieved a film that is great, funny and endearing.

After 'A Dirty Shame', I never thought that I was going to see another John Waters movie. That movie was really so bad, that I was convinced that all his movies would be like that. But when the DVD of this movie was reviewed in a popular magazine and they said that this was an excellent movie, I decided to give it a try anyway. Only a couple of days later it was shown on television. I taped it out of curiosity and now that I've seen it, I can tell you that this 'Pecker' sure is a lot better than 'A Dirty Shame'.<br /><br />In this movie we see how a young 'nobody' from Baltimore becomes an overnight sensation in the art world of New York. He's a sandwich shop employee who photographs his weird family or things that he sees on the street as a hobby. When he keeps his very first 'exhibition' in the shop where he works, his pictures are noticed by a gallery owner who loves the pictures full of misery and weirdness. His photographs are sold for enormous prices, but when he sees how his family, friends and strangers react to his success he decides that he will no longer go to New York, they will have to come to him if they want to see more of him. And they do, but what they get to see there, is a bigger shock than they could ever imagine...<br /><br />It's not difficult to see why I loved this movie a lot more than 'A Dirty Shame'. The first reason is that this movie has an actual story. This movie really has something to say and isn't just intended to shock as many people as possible. The fact that they make fun of the art world who considers everything out of the ordinary as art because they don't know what the reality is like, isn't just funny, it's not that far from the truth either. I guess there are many people who feel about modern art that way. Nobody understands why they are making such a fuss about it, but apparently we are all supposed to like it. The second reason why I liked this movie is because this one had much better acting performances to offer. I'm not saying that everything that you will see is great, but at least the characters have some meaning thanks to the performances of the different actors like Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci,...<br /><br />Overall this isn't a great movie, but thanks to its criticism and some good jokes - which never really go too far - this is an enjoyable movie. It certainly isn't the best comedy ever, but I liked it a lot more than 'A Dirty Shame'. I give this movie a 6.5/10.

Surprisingly good film made in the wake of the Exorcist concerning a young woman who becomes possessed by a spirit after she goes to a de-sanctified church to restore a life size and life like crucified man . The piece was Christ and the two thieves, however Christ was long ago sold off. Trouble starts once the figure is removed from the cross and it seems to come to life and seduce the woman. From that point on it becomes a battle for the girls soul. Creepy, scary and much better than you think the film works because its cast sells the events which are decidedly adult. It helps that these are real people who are flawed so its easier to relate to them. I really liked this film, and seeing it again for the first time in at least a decade I was shocked at how good it is. Definitely better than any of its myriad of schlocky titles makes it seem.

Being a wrestling fan, movies about wrestling generally suck (Backyard Dogs, Bodyslam, Jesse Ventura story) but this one isn't the worst I've ever seen. Yes its bad but its better than some of the others I've mentioned.<br /><br />Hulk Hogan stars as basically himself and for some reason, a rival network wants to beat him up because he doesn't want to be on that network. Let me explain it so everyone can understand....picture USA Network having Rip...and TNT will go to any lengths to get him.<br /><br />Does this make sense...no? Well don't feel bad because it doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense to have a legit ex con have a REAL fight with Rip at the end of the movie.<br /><br />None of this movie makes much sense but compared to other wrestling movies and later Hogan films its not so bad.<br /><br />4 out of 10

A couple of weeks after I saw this movie it began to remind me of John Carpenter's In The Mouth Of Madness (not for the story!) for the atmosphere, the fast elements of surprise and the dreamlike sequences. On the other hand, this movie mixes very well the image and the music (note the 4th chapter in the movie)

I saw MESSIAH 2 a few months ago and didn`t get to see the original teleplay untill a few days ago and this is far superior to the sequel . Okay it`s not a million miles away from the plot of SEVEN but it`s still compelling . Much of my praise has to do with Ken Stott`s performance as DCI Red Metcalfe a policeman who seems to have led a very unlucky life and someone who has a terrible secret . It`d be easy for Stott to go over the top but he plays the role in a fairly subtle way . Likewise the murders are very shocking but - unlike the sequel where the murders are carried out onscreen in a rather OTT manner - there`s actually little violence shown .<br /><br />My only criticisms are that the red herring was too obviously a red herring which meant I wasn`t taken in by the shock twist ( And you would probably see the shock twist coming so I won`t bother with a spoiler alert ) and that when the real murderer was revealed it seemed both slightly far fetched and caused a few plot holes to appear in the story . If I remember correctly the sequel had similar problems once the murderer was revealed so maybe it`d be a good idea not to make MESSIAH 3

This appears to be two movies spliced into one. In the first, ZaSu Pitts is a renegade in a small town. She wants to help the romantic life of Marjorie Woodworth. OK: I'd never heard of her before either. But she and Pitts are in both parts of this concoction.<br /><br />Before we know it, Pitts is no longer Miss {Polly. She is Emmie. I had to rewind to see if I'd fallen asleep somewhere. I hadn't. She no longer in a small town but on her way to the title Honeymoon destination.<br /><br />The movie has some cute moments. The first part is better, with roles for what seems to be every third-rate character actress working in Hollywood at the time.<br /><br />And what of Ms. Woolworth? She sounds a little like Betty Hutton. She sounds a little like Marie Wilson. She's pretty, certainly. But she's no comedienne.<br /><br />Pitts often was used in very small roles. Here she has the largest role. She's always fun, though this movie made me wonder if a little of her doesn't go quite a long way. (As a comic. When she was a tragic actress in Von Stroheim silents -- 'The Wedding March' and Greed' are the two I have seen -- she was brilliant.)

This must rank as one of Cinema's greatest debacles. I was wandering Europe at the time and had the misfortune to stumble upon the crew making this movie in what was, even then, one of the world's idyllic, unspoiled settings. I was enlisted as an extra, and what followed was an exhibition of modern day debauchery. Forget all the accusations you've ever heard of Peter Mayall's intrusions on this rare piece of French life- Geoff Reeve and his cohorts embarked on a level of revelry at the restaurant at Les Beaux that left the Maitre'd slack-jawed in disbelief. They were, quite simply, awful, uncultured and undeserving of French hospitality.

This film, had it been done properly, has SO much potential. Parody films are always funny, and people tend to like them because they're light hearted, stupid and silly but fun. This film WAS funny in some parts, but it could have been a lot funnier. The acting itself was OK from all the actors, but...I wasn't satisfied. It seemed a tad empty, and my summary title says it all about the effects. Proper green screens weren't used for this movie...backgrounds were added in after which just looked terrible. No wonder this film went straight to DVD lol. It wasn't ALL a total loss, it is funny and will give you a good laugh (AT it, not WITH it most of the time).

It's funny how time went by and never saw this movie...'till last week, when i was like under a spell. I saw it twice in a week and it still wasn't enough. It's a great movie and I will love to see it again. The story is great and it really moved me. I would love to live such a story. The actors are great, the music too and you can dream about your own love story. I just hope that someday I will find the opportunity to learn to dance like Johnny and Baby. I feel like dance connects people and brings them together. I think people should learn to dance...it helps a lot, especially in a relationship. It's great to feel the dance in your blood and in your body.

The bipolarity of this movie is maddening. One moment it's making fun of Latin Americans, American tourists and banana republics in general, the other it wants to be touching, with burned villages and orphans. Even the serious revolutionary hero, becomes a parody of a revolutionary at one point. But the comedy parts aren't even funny, because it's so obviously stolen from Star Wars. Yes, Star Wars, the 'hero' is basically a rogue with a heart of gold. Add to this stereotypical sounds effects, Latin Americans who speak English with one another, and a villain that just disappears from the story. And whats the point? It's basically revolution propaganda with no resolution, and no planning (because, there is just no way these people can lead a country). The US government are bad guys, but who'll make money producing this? Not some poor farmer, that's for sure.

Right, here we go, you have probably read in previous reviews on this film that it is awful, badly acted, avoid at all costs. Well i suppose in some ways this is true, it is fair to say that you couldn't write a spoiler in this comment as there is no plot to spoil. However, there is a fine line between plain awful and absolutely hilarious and believe me this film is the latter. The acting is so bad, the plot so non existent and the ending so completely baffling it will have you laughing the whole way through. There are scenes in this film that take comedy to a new level. Do not expect an Oscar winner but believe me for the small price you will pay for this disaster, it is worth every penny.

This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2)

Too much stock footage (almost one third of this 53 minute film) really slows this one down. Granted that the plot is that John Weston (John Wayne) is sent by Marshall George Higgins (George Hayes) to participate in a fixed rodeo (say 'Ro-DAY-oh'), but character development and interaction are sacrificed. The relationship between the Bad Girl (usually a Latina-- even in the great 'Duck Soup' [1933]) and the 'heroine' Polly Ann Young, a Loretta Young look-alike (hey! it's her sister!) could have benefited from more screen time. The happy ending is too abrupt-- although this time John Wayne actually kisses the girl.<br /><br />The most interesting stock footage was the lengthy rodeo parade of real Indians, squaws, and papooses. But when the best part of the movie is the stunt work by the Mighty Yak, Yakima Canutt, who gives us jumping from one horse to another and several different running leaps onto a horse, you know we're in trouble. As noted by others, the final fight with the villain is very poorly done.<br /><br />My copy, from 'Platinum Disc Corporation' featured an added,sparse, ill-fitting (pseudo-classical) stereo music track that ruins the authenticity of the original film.(The DVD box had 'enhanced audio 5.1' on it.) If you're going to modernize and colorize it you should add a 'western' sounding score with acoustic guitars, 'klip-klopping' hoofbeats, harmonicas, and an accordion. <br /><br />Finally, we have to say this is one of the weakest Lone Star efforts.

Che: Part One was a fascinating experiment, which did not only tell a very interesting story, but it also tried to do something different with the 'biopic' genre.Che: Part Two is the excellent culmination of this experiment.<br /><br />This movie offers all of the same attributes from the first one, from the extraordinary performances (specially from Benicio del Toro) to Steven Soderbergh's brilliant direction, without forgetting its intention of breaking with the conventional rules from the biopics.That is what I admire from Soderbergh's experiments...they always try to do something different and unusual, and they succeed most of the times.<br /><br />The final message from this film is perfect, and it includes everything we have been told about Che Guervara's life.The only fail I found on Che: Part Two is that a few parts felt a bit irrelevant.<br /><br />In summary, I give Che: Part Two a very enthusiastic recommendation because, as the first one, it is a brave and fascinating experiment which challenges the spectator and leaves us thinking.

Supercraptastic slasher fare, which feels overly long at 80 minutes. Years ago, a bunch of 'gypsies' who lived in the caves of a mountain, were burned up in a forest fire. Years later, campers are going missing from the area of the fire. A bunch of horny kids are, of course, en route to this area for a debaucherous camping trip of there own. Despite an ominous welcome from the forest ranger (Jackson Bostwick) the kids troop up to the mountain any way. Before long, the kids start to get picked off by the monster, who remains unseen to the very end of the movie, probably because the makeup was so embarrassingly bad. No surprises to speak of: they get killed in the exact order that the formula for these movies dictates, leaving the 'final girl' to fend for herself, although in a refreshingly downbeat denouement, the final girl ends up imprisoned and impregnated by the monster.<br /><br />The story itself couldn't hold the weight of feature length, so it was padded out by seemingly endless shots of wildlife and insects, which were obviously shot for another film and inserted here haphazardously as a means of making the movie long enough for a video release. On the plus side, the wildlife footage is rather nice. Also among the highlights are Bostwick talking to a baby deer, a decent rock-climbing death sequence, OK gore, and the Great Jackie Coogan in his final film role, as the bumbling local sheriff. This is a far cry from Charlie Chaplin, but it was still nice to see him. This is for slasher completists only.

This movie is bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen<br /><br />Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10<br /><br />Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 10

What does this movie have? Lots of gunfire and expensive effects. Nothing makes sense on any other level.<br /><br />Watching Arnold cry is seeing acting so bad that it is laughable. The plot is ludicrous.<br /><br />If you think the Devil will be impressed by a bad actor with a machine gun, well, this movie is for you!

What an overlooked 80's soundtrack. I imagine John Travolta sang some of the songs but in watching the movie it did seem to personify everything that was 80s cheese. Clearly movies that rely on mechanical bulls, bartenders and immature relationships were in style. The best was his lousy Texas accent. Compare that to Friday Night Lights.I suggest watching Cocktail and Stir Crazy to start really getting into the dumbing down of film. Also, as a side note Made in America with Ted Danson and Whoopie Goldberg is an awesomely bad movie. I was so shocked to realize I had never watched it. One more weird movie of this genre would have to include Cadilac Man with Robin Williams. Just remember all of these BIG stars played big roles in these CHEESY movies.. Tom Cruise, Richard Pryor, Robin Williams and John Travolta

There's nothing worse than renting an Asian movie and getting an American movie experience instead.<br /><br />It's only my opinion, but a good thriller is dependent upon the establishment of likable, intelligent characters. As far as likability is concerned, the protagonists in Say Yes are a quaint married couple. Nicely done. Unfortunately, they are stupid beyond belief. Let us count the ways they mishandle being terrorized by a stalker.<br /><br />1. After a hitchhiker threatens to kill you, be sure to tell him what hotel you're staying at when you drop him off.<br /><br />2. Beat the hell out of the stalker in broad daylight and in front of dozens of witnesses, thereby allowing him to press charges of assault.<br /><br />3. Don't bother telling the police about the stalker and simply assume (for no apparently good reason) that the cops were bribed by him.<br /><br />4. While trying to escape, let your lady out of your sight as much as possible to ensure that the stalker kidnaps her.<br /><br />5. After getting help from someone to find the stalker after kidnapping your wife, be sure to send them away as soon as possible so you can face him one-on-one. No point in being unfair, right? <br /><br />Now, I'd never expect that any person would be immune to making a few mistakes under these stressful conditions, but the characters in Say Yes are so dense and make so many unbelievable mistakes that it's effectively impossible for the viewer to care about their safety, since they are victims of their own doing. This kills the enjoyability of the entire film. <br /><br />In case you were wondering, the scriptwriters didn't stop with dim-witted characters. Since they themselves are surely dim-witted for writing this crapfest, they decided to make situations so absurdly unrealistic that all sense of reality goes out the window.<br /><br />1. The stalker kills a cop inside a police station – while the protagonist is asleep no more than ten feet away.<br /><br />2. The stalker engages in all sorts of dubious activities in broad daylight and around tons of people, yet no one other than the married couple seems to notice his odd behavior.<br /><br />3. The stalker survives an absurd amount of violence that would have killed any human being.<br /><br />4. The 'suspense' scenes had no imagination whatsoever. In fact, some scenes were direct rip-offs from American movies.<br /><br />The only positive is the decapitation near the end, which was a pretty brutal scene since it was inflicted upon the wife. It's too bad the filmmakers followed it up with an outrageously stupid ending that comes out of left field.<br /><br />Truly, the Koreans behind the making of Say Yes should be ashamed of themselves. Better yet, they should just move to California and take employment with people who make movies with a similar disregard for quality and intelligence.

Predictable Unmotivated Pointless Caricatures Contrived Actors did what they could Actors clearly indicated they were embarrassed to do this Not one emotional connection REAL SEQUENCE FROM FILM 'Who you callin?' (sic) 'The police'(sic) 'You can't do that, Stevie. Hang up the phone'(sic) 'Jesse got a sh-t load o' drug money, you can't go involving the cops'(sic) 'I'm not so sure stealing money from criminals is a crime. Even if they arrest him at least he'll be alive'(sic) 'Listen to me, Stevie, this ain't handled right, Jesse's gonna end up dead. Now hang up that f-in phone.' (sic) Best Friend starts to load up guns Brother, 'Hey, what're you doin'?' No answer. 'Hey, I got a family to worry about.' (Keep in mind his child is sitting right there watching-ish all of this) Then more and more and more exposition<br /><br />Notice how in the above sequence, at no time do the police on the other line say, 'Hello? Hello? Uh, we can hear everything you're saying. We're sending someone over there right now.' <br /><br />Embarrassment for all. Oops.

American Pie has gone a long distance from the first. At first i believe the actors don't have a clue what their doing and instead it's just a remake of a college party gone nuts. Story sets out as two freshman college guys (featuring the young stifler) setting out the dreams of attending college just to experience the late night parties, sex and of course the booze. The plot is stupid and comes along way away from the original pie. In fact they didn't once again feature an apple pie somewhere in the film.<br /><br />Luckily i work in a video store and can rent for free. But please remember it is a waste of time unless you enjoy brainless sex films with absolute nudity and insane drinking. I'm a teen myself and i believe even Evan almighty would've been a better choice instead.

NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens. <br /><br />The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.<br /><br />The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.<br /><br />Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.<br /><br />This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass.

I actually liked this movie until the end. Sure, it was cheesy and pretty unlikely but still it kept my attention on a rainy afternoon. Until the end, that is. For her final performance at the prestigious classical conservatory where she has struggled to catch-up to the other classically trained students, what does the main character do? Wow them with her grasp and execution of this time honored musical tradition? No. She tortures and butchers the great sensuous Habanera from Carmen and turns it into an utterly forgettable Brittany Spears-wannabe pop song. My ears bled! And, in the supreme moment of horror, her teachers gave her a standing ovation! Any teacher not in a Spears-induced fantasy would have failed her on the spot. Save your time, save your ears - skip this movie!

Isabelle Huppert must be one of the greatest actresses of her or any other generation. 'La Pianiste' truly confirms it. As if that wasn't enough, Annie Girardot plays her mother and Annie Girardot is one of the greatest actresses of her or any other generation. So, as you may well imagine, those pieces of casting are worth the horror we're put through. Isabelle and Annie play characters we've never seen before on the screen. A mother and daughter yes but with such virulent fearlessness that sometimes I was unable even to blink or to breath. Personally, I don't believe in the director's intentions, I don't believe they (the intentions that is) go beyond the shocking anecdote and the ending made me scream with frustration but I was riveted by the story written in the face of the sensational Huppert and the fierceness of Girardot's strength. I highly recommend it to cinema lovers anywhere and to the collectors of great performances like me, you can't afford to miss 'La Pianiste'

Well, it is a Monogram quickie from the dreaded period of the '40s when poverty row studios put out a good many 'horror' films that are almost unimaginably dull... So I was expecting the worst. <br /><br />The story concerns a doctor who has been working on a way to restore life to the dead through the use of a room full of non-utilitarian electrical devices which spark nicely. There is a dog's heart hanging under a bell jar and twitching fitfully, which we are informed is proof that his method is perfected.<br /><br />A brief discussion of the metaphysical implications and mention of an important plot point precede the inevitable death of a young man who is revived in a rather undramatic sequence - undramatic even with the sparks. The important plot point is that a convicted murderer is being executed just at midnight, which turns out to be exactly when the young man is revived. It is no surprise that the young man is very different after his experience; apparently amnesiac and with a strange desire to visit the haunts of the underworld and become acquainted with certain gangsters...<br /><br />It's hard to explain why this all is not completely unwatchable, but perhaps it suffices to say that it's mildly interesting and contains several murders and a couple of interesting characters. Towards the end it even begins to move along with a bit of real tension and a confrontation that is downright Hitchcockian. SPOILER<br /><br />I have to warn of a very, very bad ending. A tagged on unnecessary, pain in the ass sorta ending. After the plot resolves rather effectively...<br /><br />You know the sort of thing... It's all a dream. Never happened.

I just finished watching one episode(S1-#5 A boy in a bush), so maybe my review is not very fair.<br /><br />But based on that episode, this is a very poor version of CSI, the acting is crap. The main character, Dr whatever her name is, is so fake it actually hurts. I wouldn't cast her to do an add for dog food!<br /><br />The other hurtful thing is David Boreanaz of the 'Angel' fame, a good actor, does a great job, but wasted coz of the idiotic acting of that woman.<br /><br />Supporting cast is OK, but all is ruined due to this stupid acting of Emily Deschanel .<br /><br />Very disappointing version of CSI, very sorry to see it appear on the filmography of some of the potential talents involved in it.<br /><br />That woman is really sh#t, at least in that episode. But based on this one view, I will not even invest watching it even if it was shown on an elevator screen.

This is a really cute movie. I had a massive sleepover (girls 10-11) and they absolutely loved this movie. They watched it twice! Don't let the rating fool you. You have to be 13 or older to rate a movie on IMDb, that eliminates the movie's target audience. If you have a girl (or boy) between 7 and 13, I guarantee they'll enjoy this movie. <br /><br />Sort of a gender reversed 'Notting Hill' set in high school. Aaron Carter plays a famous pop star who is failing his privately tutored classes. His mom sends him to a 'regular' high school with the ultimatum, 'pass high school or no summer tour.' Taking the advice of his Manager (former pop star David Cassidy) he befriends the smartest girl in school (Alana Austin) with plans to cheats off her. Look for the humorous and insightful Janitor (another former pop star Lief Garrett).

Oh dear, Oh dear. I started watching this not knowing what to expect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were times when I thought it was a comedy. I loved how the government's plan to capture the terrorist leader is to air drop in one man, who is unarmed, and expect him to capture him and escape with a rocket pack. If only it were really that easy. I've finally found a movie worse than 'Plan 9 From Outer Space'.

I saw Beyond Rangoon about 20 times, it was THAT GOOD. At first when I watched it, I saw the story of Laura Bowman, but later, after multiple showings, I realised that this also was a parallel documentary. It came to be in my mind, a story about Aung San Suu Kyi, and the struggles of women to remain strong in the face of uncertainty, danger, and sadness. I also would put history, and politics on the list after further viewing, since I did learn a lot about Burma's past, and present, and could only guess at it's future. This movie is not only one you will want to see, it's also one you will definitely want to own a copy of. It's a movie that could easily been seen by the whole family, although not for children under thirteen. However, the educational benefits of this movie can not, and should not be understated.

It's easy to see how this below-average screenplay got by in the early sales-pitch meetings at Regency Films (and later with Fox): cross the superhero genre with a comedic take on 'Fatal Attraction'...voilà! I don't know how on earth a talented director like Ivan Reitman got involved, unless the pay was just too tempting. A dateless employee at an architectural design firm in N.Y.C. meets a girl on the subway and asks her out; despite the fact she's distracted and unpleasant, he eventually gets her into bed--only to find out later she's the Big Apple's resident superhero, G-Girl. This distaff Superman, with powers bestowed upon her by a fallen meteorite, isn't a fantasy heroine, however...screenwriter Don Payne has conceived her as a needy, possessive, vindictive bitch (he telegraphs this to us from miles away, though Uma Thurman still plays the role for sassy laughs). This is the kind of worthless movie that can't let an insult slip by. Our introduction to leading man Luke Wilson, talking with Rainn Wilson on the train, is accompanied by a sour dig at gays (it prods at us to be assured these two buddies are strictly ladies' men). After being approached by G-Girl's nemesis, who wants to zap her powers, Wilson is told this will make her just an ordinary woman scorned...and isn't that better after all? Thurman's early performances in films like 'Henry & June' and 'Jennifer 8' showcased an intelligent woman with angular grace and hypnotic poise; her films with Quentin Tarantino helped expose her sinewy hardness and intensity, but that came at a price (the actress has seemingly lost her graceful touch). The picture is exceedingly well-produced and shot, with expensive-seeming special effects, yet nobody bothered to find the humor in this scenario. It's pushy, leering, ugly, and badly-cast. Bloated, frozen-faced Wilson can't tell any of his co-workers that he's dating G-Girl because she made him swear he'd rather have a chainsaw stuck up his rectum. I wonder if writer Payne actually thought that was hilarious...or, indeed, if anyone involved did? * from ****

It was meant to be a parody on the LOTR-Trilogy. But this was one of the most awful movies I've ever seen. Bad acting, bad screenplay, bad everything. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I don't doubt any second that there are people who'll like this sense of 'humor', but there have been better parodies on movies from acclaimed directors as Mel Brooks or the Zucker Brothers. I'm working in a movie theater and in DVD Shop and the success for this movie was similar in both areas: At the movies it was a nice (but no big at all) success during the first two weeks but then, when the reviews of those who have seen it were not too good, the movie dropped very fast. In DVD sales it was good for short time but then nobody asked for it anymore. In the last ten years, the two worst movies I've seen are The Ring Thing and Torque. I can't decide which one was worse, but I'm happy that there a so many good movies so I don't have to think too much on this question.

One of the many silent comedies Stan Laurel featured in before he teamed with Oliver Hardy, 'Mud and Sand' is a ho-hum hokum. The story is badly disjointed - though this could be because of the modern-day edit - and the humor itself is not at all inventive.<br /><br />Potential plotlines are started and ignored; for instance, Stan's promise to make Fillet de Sole pay for what she's done to him never comes to fruition. Stan's character doesn't seem very centered, either, but this is a common criticism of his work before he developed 'Stanley' of Laurel & Hardy fame, so it might be that I was just expecting to see this shortcoming.<br /><br />I strongly believe that all the silent films should be preserved and viewed, and I'm glad this one is still available. It's just not a great film.

The Beloved Rogue is a wonderful period piece. It portrays 145th century Paris in grand Hollywood fashion, yet offering a bleaker side to existence there as it would be experienced by the poor. And the snow. It's constantly swirling about, adding to the severity of the setting -- brilliant! The setting is enhanced by the odd cast of characters, including beggars, cripples and dwarfs.<br /><br />A brilliant performance is turned in by John Barrymore, outdone only by the magnificent Conrad Veidt, who portrays a degenerate, dissolute Louis XI to perfection. And yes, Veidt picks his nose on purpose, pushing his portrayal to wonderfully wry limits.

I being of Puertorican descent, had mixed fillings about this 'documentary'. First I was offended that Ms. Perez compared Senor Campos to Che Guevarra. Also just a point of fact,Mr. John Leguzaimo is not of Puertorican descent.His parents came from Columbia. Whomever did research on this was not very accurate. I feel that the future of our race rests on education. This message should have been resounding throughout this film, Education is our road to freedom and power I think any future endeavors of this production team should make this their focus.In my opinion,this film swayed toward an anti-American sentiment.

Anyone who rates this movie above a 3 has a very distorted view of movies, anyone who rated this piece of sh!t 7 or higher, i have absolutely no respect for their taste in movies, and doubt they have ever seen a good one. I am always up for giving any movie a shot and i did with this one, i tried to pay attention, i tried not to let my money go 2 waste but 15 minutes in my friends were laughing at me cause i was listenin 2 my iPod, 25 minutes later i couldn't even watch the overacting that was occurring within the film, so i up and left, i have never ever ever walked out of a movie, until this garbage, Anyone who said they enjoyed it is a liar, or they should be banned from this site. I get so angry when i see a person rate this an 8 when the Godfathers overall rating is a 9.1 its like saying that that movie was close which it isn't.

2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way! <br /><br />The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based: <br /><br />1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.) <br /><br />2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.<br /><br />I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.<br /><br />Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)

Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character.

The first time I had heard of Guest House Paridiso was in the, er... 'washroom' after having just seen Fight Club. In each urinal was deposited a small, round black circle. When the circle came into contact with moisture (to put it delicately), it caused a colour picture to form, with photographs of the two stars and the tag line 'You'll P*** Yourself Laughing'. When you'd finished washing your hands, the circle had dried and faded to black again, waiting to spring it's surprise on the next 'victim'.<br /><br />Okay, maybe the punchline wasn't terribly sophisticated, but you have to admit it was innovative. In fact, I think I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my life before, and these days of over a century of cinema and marketing, that's a real feat. What a pity the film that went with it failed to live up to the promise.<br /><br />I hate to pan Guest House Paridiso and I am indebted to Rik Mayall (Richard Twat) and Adrian Edmondson (Eddie Elizabeth Ndingombaba) for many years of laughter through their appealing television series, be it the invention of The Young Ones (1982-1984), the sitting room plays of Bottom (1991-1995), or even solo work, such as Rik in the New Statesman (1988-1993). In fact, this would have made an hilarious 45 minute tv special. Unfortunately, its an 89 minute film.<br /><br />There's definitely some merit to be had, and I laughed continuously throughout the protracted finale, which spoofed the Exorcist and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and involved... well, you'll have to see that bit for yourself. Yet often the pace is leaden, and a sterile atmosphere is throughout. The two stars (Edmondson taking his usual backseat, this time due to the fact that he adequately directs) never really get into first gear, Mayall only sporadically showing the foul-mouthed mania that makes us love him on the small screen. Indeed, the writers' presumption that we are already familiar with the characters leads to them being underdelivered to the audience. The slight hints of depth seen in the series (Richie's effeminate, failed social-climbing for example) are not present here, and instead we are left with parodies of parodies.<br /><br />The Fawlty Towers accusation does pass water, complete with drunken chef and unseen, called-for waiter 'Pasquele', which uncannily rhymes with Manuel. Some of the ideas, such a hotel next to a nuclear reactor with a childrens' swing hanging over a cliff face, are very, very funny, but ultimately the frenetic pace is stolen, the two constantly looking for a studio audience that isn't there, and all the 'dead laugh' areas patched up with incidental 'comedy' music that would have been dated in a Carry On film two decades ago.<br /><br />Paridiso's brand of puerile, sadistic, perverse humour IS funny, and I feel sure it will make you laugh ... just not as often as it should.

During a sleepless night, I was switching through the channels & found this embarrassment of a movie. What were they thinking?<br /><br />If this is life after 'Remote Control' for Kari (Wuhrer) Salin, no wonder she's gone nowhere.<br /><br />And why did David Keith take this role? It's pathetic!<br /><br />Anyway, I turned on the movie near the end, so I didn't get much of the plot. But this must've been the best part. This nerdy college kid brings home this dominatrix-ish girl...this scene is straight out of the comic books -- or the cheap porn movies. She calls the mother anal retentive and kisses the father 'Oh, I didn't expect tongue!' Great lines!<br /><br />After this, I had to see how it ended..<br /><br />Well, of course, this bitch from hell has a helluva past, so the SWAT team is upstairs. And yes...they surround her! And YES YES! The kid blows her brains out!!!! AHAHHAHAHAHA!!<br /><br />This is must-see TV. <br /><br />

The acting was horrible and they got both of the sports wrongggg.......not only did they get the figure skating rules wrong, but also they rules of GIRLS Ice Hockey. In GIRLS ice hockey you cannot check. You also don't BLOCK for someone. Not all they girls are disgusting gross mean and big. I play hockey and I'm only 4'11 and have been asked to go to schools like the one in the movie. Also not all hockey players hate figure skaters. A lot of current girls hockey players were once figure skaters themselves. Also we skate A LOT faster then the ones in the movie. I was embarrassed by the movie it gave people the idea that we suck.......although i must mention that it is difficult to transition between the sports because of the toe pick on the figure skates.....also some of those twirly moves KAtelin was doing on the ice you couldn't do in a regular hockey game. She basically tripped the person, which is illigal. Its also unrealistic that she would get a HOCKEY scholarship when she figure skates. That really made me angry that scholarship would normally be used to someone who could benefit the team.

'The Classic War of the Worlds' by Timothy Hines is a very entertaining film that obviously goes to great effort and lengths to faithfully recreate H. G. Wells' classic book. Mr. Hines succeeds in doing so. I, and those who watched his film with me, appreciated the fact that it was not the standard, predictable Hollywood fare that comes out every year, e.g. the Spielberg version with Tom Cruise that had only the slightest resemblance to the book. Obviously, everyone looks for different things in a movie. Those who envision themselves as amateur 'critics' look only to criticize everything they can. Others rate a movie on more important bases,like being entertained, which is why most people never agree with the 'critics'. We enjoyed the effort Mr. Hines put into being faithful to H.G. Wells' classic novel, and we found it to be very entertaining. This made it easy to overlook what the 'critics' perceive to be its shortcomings.

Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.

I was to young to ever know much about prince but in the past few years I've seen a lot of Purple Rain Novelty Tee's and i thought they were cool but i didn't want to buy a shirt i knew nothing about. So one Saturday it came on fuse and i decided to watch it. I didn't know what the movie was going to be about before i watched it but it was great once i found out. In the movie prince wasn't known as prince but as 'the kid'. All the performances where great to me but my favorite were Purple Rain, Darling Nicki, and I would die for you. All the songs tied into what was going on through out the movie when his mother and father were always fighting the song when doves cried described what he was feeling. I also like how clever prince was with the way he flirted with Apallonia. I liked when Prince and Appallonia first met in the club and he stood behind her standing and then once she turned around he disappeared! great movie and now i cant even find one of those tee shirts :(

You know, I'm sure the boys were sitting around the office one day and said, 'HOW CAN WE MAKE MORE MONEY?' They had made every possible variant of toy they could make with their current characters. So they decide, let's steal the star wars idea, A PREQUEL, and we can make up all new characters, and sell them as toys. Incidently something they did in puppet master 3, but who cares? Anyway they pick a point in time before the first movie when Toulon is still alive, he and the puppets are sitting around, and a wooden head roll on the floor and the puppets want to know if that is a dead family member or something, it doesn't matter. So the tale of the puppet master ancestry begins. It's long, it's boring, no body cares.<br /><br />The funniest part is, they tell the origin of these new characters in the movie, but give no clues of their fate. SO GUESS WHAT, once the revenue from the new toys pays off, they can fundsa new (and 4th straight rotten) sequel, called 'PUPPET MASTER 8 THE SEQUEL TO THE PREQUEL OF THE FATE OF THE DEAD RETRO PUPPETS!' hold your breath!

Contains spoilers. <br /><br />The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum. <br /><br />Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.<br /><br />The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10

A boat builder in a sleepy town in Maine is going out of business, and the lives of all of the (soon to be ex-)workers and families are disrupted. The biggest disappointment is that the two stars--Bates and Bridges--have only bit parts.<br /><br />Interesting, but not something you would see twice.<br /><br />

This film is a tapestry, a series of portraits of Rom communities woven together by music. It's very much a musician's film, because of the paucity of spoken dialogue - and what dialogue there is, is not important to the structure of the narrative. Some might expect a National Geographic tale of 'customs, dress, and music' or a plot-line orbiting a few central characters - don't look for that here.<br /><br />This is because it paints a portrait of a family of peoples, rather than telling a story of individuals. The plot is the story through space (India to Andalucia) and/or/ time (we cannot tell) of a people. There is no need of narration. You get a sense of a joyous people, strongly linked in small communities where social interaction is very important. And a great sense of sadness in parts, at their rejection by society at large.<br /><br />So it's a paean to Rom culture, very beautifully shot, with a wide spectrum of Rom music, and a sting in the tail which is the oppression these people have faced, and still face.

It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture?

I just want to say that I am so glad somebody finally spilled the beans on this movie. Bravo 'The Spaz', Bravo! This movie is a ridiculous farce of film-making. Especially for a student film! I just want to give credit to the Spazz for taking the absurd amount of time a care to find such a rare picture, and then TO COMMENT ON IT! Most people I know don't have that kind of time, especially so few will end of reading it. Kudos to you sir! Anyway, the movie follows a thin storyline that is at the least unbelievable and just plain silly. I understand the idea behind creating a satire of Charlie's Angels but why hire such atrocious actresses! Also, what kind of director has himself act, write, produce and also edit the picture! Choose one job and put all your love into it man! It's such a shame because I hear he made a good movie about a killer toothbrush. Again, thanks to the Spazz for pulling back the curtain on this film, people like you are a rare find.

Dillon, Fishbourne, Reno, should have teamed up for a much smarter effort, because this one slides in the B-Category and could have been done with no-name actors and a much smaller budget, since anyway, 2 armored trucks and a wasted warehouse could not have coasted too much. Since the writers did not manage to come with a smart heist plan, they targeted the dramatics of the situation, but there was not much to exploit there either. Fishbourne and Reno do not bring anything to this movie except the media interest, they're only expensive advertising. Dillon is OK, but this was a walk in the park. The choices of the main character, Ty Hackett, are quite uninspired and the final, with the 'reward' is quite childish. Waste of time, money, actors and so on.

Whatever the producer was going for, he missed entirely. The Lone Ranger is not camp, but 'the' icon for good-doers all over the world. And it's a total violation of the spirit of the character that the only real Lone Ranger, Mr. Clayton Moore, was forbidden to wear his mask in public appearances when this movie was released.<br /><br />Whelp, long story short, the single saving grace of this gross (and poorly done) distortion was that in that year, I had the honor of meeting Mr. Clayton Moore in Columbus Ohio, as part of a tour resulting from the bad press over Mr. Moore's treatment. Needless to say, Mr. Moore's character, integrity and presence far outshined the movie.<br /><br />Some things cannot be done better. There is only one Lone Ranger.

This owes a great deal to the plot of CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS. Although he is quite grown up, it is partly the story of a wealthy lad who is shanghaied as a crew member aboard a cargo vessel and becomes a man in the process. Moran of the title is a boyish young woman also brought up on a vessel owned by her father. When the cargo burns, she and crew members are evacuated to our lad's ship. However, the captain has smuggling on his mind and his intentions are not honorable where Moran is concerned. The inevitable ensues - our lad falls for the mannish Moran and she for him. In the end evil is subdued and the lovers are united. Some interesting dialogue points out that Moran belongs to no man -'and no woman.' (A nod to Sappho here). Dorothy Dalton is appropriately sexless as Moran and not too attractive either. Valentino does well in a romantic, action role. His sexy build and physique are shown off to advantage and the role is quite a masculine one. He is very appealing. This is no great film but it passes the time. What it really showcases is Valentino's beauty and sexiness.

Not 'confusing' in the sense that, 'Gee, this movie is really complex, and thus hard to follow!' But confusing in the sense that, 'Gee, this movie really has no idea what it's doing!'<br /><br />DREAM OF A WARRIOR is a Hong Kong/South Korean collaboration, but it's all utter nonsense. A movie about parallel universes mixed in with time travel mixed in with love story mixed in with silliness.<br /><br />The film has the type of concept that boggles the mind. Again, not boggles the mind because it's so great and complex, but boggles in the sense that it's so ridiculous and one can't conceive of anyone ever coming up with such an awful premise to begin with.<br /><br />Nothing in DREAM OF A WARRIOR makes sense, and that's because the whole movie should never have been made. It is quite awful. The only saving grace is the actress who plays the female warrior (not the female lead).<br /><br />3 out of 10.

This movie is really goofy! I saw it as an 11 year old, and even then I thought it was pretty ridiculous! I would only recommend this film to kids under the age of 12. I really didn't care for it, but I do think that it answers some very good questions that kids need to be aware of, such as: 1)Does money buy happiness? 2)Should I lie (to my parents) about things I think they wouldn't approve of? 3)Does money buy friendships? 4)Is money everything? 5)Shouldn't I tell my parents when someone is trying to hurt me? Granted, these are very unrealistic situations, but I do think that if parents discussed these issues with their children, maybe they should watch this video as well, in order to show/scare their kids that lies have the potential to get you hurt.

I love Sarah Plain and Tall:Winters End. Its such a good movie. It tells of the hardships of living on a farm.I live on a farm so I know what its like to have hardships.<br /><br />I love the setting in Kansas. Its such a beautiful place. My favorite country star is from Kansas. I love the country in Kansas its just so beautiful. I would love to live in Kansas.<br /><br />Sarah Plain and Tall:Winters End I think is a love story. I love love stories they are so fun to watch. I like to watch them because it is nice to watch people fall in love. Falling in love is not as hard as most people think. I've fallen in love once. Sarah Plain and Tall: Winters End is my favorite love story

Well this movie certainly was in keeping with the current times. No happy endings, super-heroes, or miracles here. Just down-to-earth fiction to stimulate our minds along the lines of terrorism, and what-ifs. Kudos to Percival and Mickery for an excellent screenplay and superb direction by Percival. Films like this are needed to keep us aware of what is out there. If every peace-loving man and woman on earth reported obviously suspicious activities I believe terrorism could not thrive. This movie showed just how hard it really is to subvert these terrorists, even with good intelligence. Even though the film is a bit propagandist against Islam (the use of a Muslim police officer as a main character) I believe it was entirely realistic. There was meant to be shock-value in the bombing incident. As a very clever tool to relay the humility and indignity of people caught up in an attack such as this, they showed full nudity of women being decontaminated post-attack. It didn't take me long to realize that this was meant to even further instill into the viewer that thought, i.e., we are not in control of everything in a situation like this. Although this took place in London, with the usual high-level British acting, it makes a statement for any part of the world. Great movies don't have to be blockbuster epic productions, and this movie is very very worthy of viewing.

Surface, from the day its teaser first showed in the summer of 2005, was a tossup. On one hand, it seemed so high-concept and plot driven that to the passerby it felt like it would work out better as a motion picture (or several). Plus, it felt like it was NBC's attempt at a 'Lost-killer'. On the other hand, one may have realized that the story was too expansive to tell in a movie or two, and fans of Lost seemed intrigued.<br /><br />So, after one (and possibly only) season on NBC, the show is on an indefinite hiatus that could either put it in the vault, on Sci-fi, or filling a gap in NBC's lineup in the summer or fall of 2007 or beyond. Its ratings were some of the better on the network (which isn't saying much), but the show has been taken off the air with no real official announcement of its future.<br /><br />So, is it worthwhile? Yes.<br /><br />Surface follows a continuing story format, driven by plot with next to no filler episodes. Almost everything that happens on the show is important to the plot, much like a motion picture. No filler episodes, which put a pain in your side when you missed an episode. Yet, the show's double-edge helped made up for that; Big things seem to happen every episode, but since it feels like a movie you end every episode feeling like little happened and you're left wanting more! That trait of the show, though shows how great it is. The cast is solid; the three main leads, including the beautiful Lake Bell as Laura Daughtery, put in a solid performance every episode, each driven by their own reasons for finding/studying the creatures. The supporting cast, including Ian Anthony Dale and the brief performance by Rade Serbedzija fill out the cast well. The story is slow to start (my one regret; it doesn't really pick up until a 3-4 episodes in to the short 15-episode season), but the latter half of the season makes up for it. The visual effects are stunning (one's jaw will drop when you see an overhead view of one of the creatures 'attack' a ship), as well.<br /><br />Many of the show's problems can be remedied by purchasing the complete first season and not having to wait a week (or three) to watch the next episode.<br /><br />In short, if you've missed the first season and you're curious, go back and watch it. It's no Twin Peaks in terms of quirkiness, but the high-concept nature of it puts in in league with that, Lost, and other similar shows, with a flair for action and adventure. Enjoy it.

It would be something to try and tell someone what Fata Morgana is very simply about. Or, maybe it isn't: Herzog goes to the Sahara desert and nearby villages to film assorted landscapes and the locals. But this is just the broadest stroke. It's a feat that you either surrender yourself to, or you don't. He gets into the form of the world around him entirely, without a story, bound only to certain aspects of written poetry, as his camera (shooting on supposedly discarded film stock) wanders like in a pure travelogue. One might even jump to that easy conclusion, as he puts up these immense landscapes, then moving to more rough civilized culture (though not the actual 'normal' culture itself), and to a point levels too abstract to be able to convey properly here. Sometimes it takes a while to get along, close to a purity through the 'creation' section, but a purity in how parts are manipulated either by nature or by broken-down machines. Soon the narration, readings from the Popol Vuh (who, by the way, does the music for most of his films), with the gradual procession of actually highly stylized shots adds a whole different level to it. It's a hybrid film, and it's not easy, but the rewards are what best comes closest to Herzog's idea of 'ecstatic truth', images he's been out for his whole career.<br /><br />One wonders if the images end up, by the time the second section, Paradise, leading along the words spoken, or if it's the other way around. You're eyes are moving along with the stills and pans, and the wording is close to being religious writing, but there's also the music choices, how the bizarrely spare singing and low-key classical music goes together with Leonard Cohen and Blind Faith. I think each side ends up complimenting the other, and it's something that still *seems* like it shouldn't work. Perhaps that's the draw to it, the chances taken in going through desolate wastelands and the smallest run sections of any kind of civilized life (in this case the shacks of the desert), that make it so fascinating. If only for the cinematographic sense it's a marvel, too indescribable for the casual photography fan because of molds of technique, and some of the strangest images of any Herzog film. There's pans, there's long-shots, there's hand-held while driving by the towns, there's a bus dozens of miles away that via mirage seems only a couple, there's full-on close-ups of fire and a man holding a reptile and talking about its radar (truly classic gonzo comedy), there's people holding still in fake poses, and a man and woman playing inane music. But, most importantly, it ends up feeling, at least for me, natural for the personal nature of the approach.<br /><br />I'm sure only Herzog would know for certain why he made this film, as opposed to the simple 'how'; he was already filming Even Dwarfs Started Small, and he ended up going through many perils to finish it. Yet this is what makes Fata Morgana such an amazing feat- it will appeal to one depending on what someone brings to it in actually watching it. It's definitely unsettling, but there's the temptation to want to see it again very soon after, just to experience all of the ideas and realities turned abstracted strange vibes (yes, the word 'vibes' applies here). It's one of the truly spectacular 'art-films' ever made.

First I was caught totally off guard by the film's initial lyricism and then I became totally enchanted with the unfolding story and engrossed with the brilliant directing. The characters were all fully developed, not bigger-than-life but just like the people we live among anywhere we are in the world, in Sweden, in Turkey or in America, all completely believable human beings with foibles and nobility. Hollywood could learn so much from this beautiful film. It shows that there is no need to go into every little detail behind every action to bring out the whole theme clear and bright, and that shows the brilliance of the director! Hearfelt thanks to Kay Pollak and the wonderful cast for this superb treat!!

THis is a bewildering, Absurdist Short. A miller, dressed in white, makes his way towards us from a windmill in a desolate landscape. Although the image is pared down, there is an obvious logic here. However, he is stopped by the sweep, all in black because of his work. They start pummelling each other for no particular reason - did the snooty miller insult the sooty sweep? Is this class war? <br /><br />Whatever, he pelts his adversary with bags of grain which fly all over the fight, making redundant everything he had done prior to the fight, making redundant the windmill, so that all becomes as pointless as the fight. The miller's grain whitens the sweep's blackness - later Westerns wouldn't be so subtle, heroes and villains being colour-coded. Is there a racial tint here? <br /><br />If this wasn't marvellous enough, the fighters are chased off the screen by a crowd of people who came from nowhere, an appropriately Kafkaesque ending to an odd story (or are they just the social conscience rising up against a fight that negates order and purpose?), and very unusual in the days of early silent cinema. This mix of comedy, surrealism, and the Absurd is an obvious forerunner for BUster Keaton, while the windmill reminds us of one of the great thrillers, Hitchcock's 'Foreign Correspondant'.

From an artistic standpoint, the movie fails to entertain or provide any moral resolution. The plot is hard to follow, if there is one at all. The acting is tough to stomach. The dialogue is cliche and clearly written by somebody who doesn't know English. Only the cinematography was worth watching in this movie, although you can still see flaws in the picture.<br /><br />As an Asian-American female, the movie angered me because it proved how narrow minded people can be. Politically speaking, putting Asian women in such disgraceful roles should be outlawed. Perpetuating stereotypes of Asian prostitutes is not only bad for the self-esteem of Asian women, but also to the country as a whole. I feel for the lead actress who played Maya and the exploitation she must have faced in playing such a role.<br /><br />As Americans, please avoid this movie. Art should be used to develop our tolerance and respect for one another, not hold it back.

Although there were a few rough spots and some plot lines that weren't exactly true to character, this was Classic H:LOTS. The characters, outside of Mike Giardello (Giancarlo Esposito), were true to form, and the reunion scenes of Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor) were as deep and well acted as anything ever to grace the small screen.<br /><br />'Homicide: The Movie' aka 'Life Everlasting' is a fan flick, but stands on its own as well as any 2-hour episode of the series. Fontana, Overmeyer and Yoshimura did a wonderful job in pulling loose ends from 7 seasons and every major cast member of 'the best damn show on television' together for the series finale that NBC never bothered to give it. True to 'Homicide' form, there were no happy endings, such is life. That's what has always set this show apart from the mindless cookie-cutter cop shows left on television. Kudos to the writers and the cast for creating something over the span of the series and in the movie that challenged television viewers and producers alike.<br /><br />** I call myself a 'Homicidal Maniac' if for no other reason than to keep my co-workers in a cooperative mood. **

Having watched the show for about four weeks, which is enough to get a feel for the show, I think it shows potential. Whilst much is borrowed from other shows (what sci-fi doesn't these days), and the characters are stereotyped, I like what they are doing with the stories. There is some continuity with plot development and character interaction/relationship building, despite the essentially modular nature of each episode. There have been some science related topics explored as well as character secret/weakness revelations. These have also added some comedy to the show, something I would gladly see more of in 'serious' sci-fi. In all, this makes for good balance, such that can appeal to larger groups of people, unlike the Star Trek vs Babylon 5 debates I've been numerous participant and witness to. The visual aspects of the show are more than adequate, and well budgeted for a first season. The acting is acceptable, and I am curious to see how well the actors manage to grow their characters out of their scripted stereotypes. I see enough positives and potential to remain interested in seeing where the show wants to go...

This tale of the upper-classes getting their come-uppance and wallowing in their high-class misery is like a contemporary Mid-Sommerish version of an old Joan Crawford movie in which she suffered in mink. Here, people behave in a frightfully civilized manner in the face of adversity. A well-heeled London solicitor, (Tom Wilkinson), discovers that not only is his wife having an affair with the local gentry but that she has also killed their housekeeper's husband in a hit-and-run accident. He throws up, but otherwise his stiff-upper-lip hardly quavers.<br /><br />Written and directed by Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for writing 'Gosford Park', (this is his directorial debut), from a novel by Nigel Balchin, it's quite comical although I am not sure how much of the comedy is intended. It's like a throw-back to British films of the forties where characters all behaved like characters in books or plays rather than like people might in real life. However, it's not all bad. Wilkinson is terrific, even if you never believe in him as a person while Emily Watson, (the adulterous wife), and Rupert Everett, (the highly amoral high-class totty), are both very good at covering the cracks in the material. Tony Pierce-Roberts' cinematography ensures that no matter how hard it is on the ear it's always good on the eye.

As others that have commented around the web... I'm a 130 pilot in the Coast Guard. Having said that, and being the skeptic I am, I went expecting the over-the-top cheese factors. There was some cheese, but all in all, not much.. and the film was pretty accurate.<br /><br />I watched the trailer again today. After seeing the film yesterday, I've realized the trailer gives the impression the movie is nothing but rescue after rescue action scenes. This isn't the case.<br /><br />The movie is truly more character/story driven than action. The inner struggles both Costner and Kutcher are dealing with.. Kutcher's is revealed further into than movie than Costner's is.<br /><br />Of course, there is a minor love story.. no surprise there. But for the most part, the movie tells the tale of two lives that come together, and after some time, help each other heal old wounds.<br /><br />As girlie as it sounds, Costner and, as much as I try not to like him, Kutcher do actually work quite well together and compliment each other very well in the movie.<br /><br />As critics have stated, you've seen it all before.. Top Gun, Officer and a Gentlemen, etc. But what movie hasn't been remade a million times.<br /><br />I can recall only one F word being spoken.. and can't really recall any other language.<br /><br />The movie is 2+ hours, and for some, may tend to get a little long towards the end.<br /><br />You'll laugh, you may cry, but I can honestly say, it was worth the $4 I paid.<br /><br />I hope you enjoy the movie.

The basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage-a-trois. Fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this, using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists, invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience.<br /><br />It's really rather messy though. Fellowes doesn't seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat-edged. Rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves.<br /><br />The dialogue is inconsistent, stagey here, vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional cliché-landmine. Though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can't create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. There's also a very prosaic, dare I say it British feel to the filming. I didn't want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation, I wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story.<br /><br />Finally it is, in fact, the story which lets the rest down. Just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes, woven as a vehicle for character examination. Wilkinson and Watson support this meta-essay with good performances and John Warnaby's ebullient colleague Simon to Wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow-furrowing.<br /><br />I'm disappointed; not that it's bad, but that it could have been much better. 3/10

Will Smith is one of the best actors of all time. I don't know how he does it. I read books constantly but if there is a movie with Will Smith I will watch it. He has a rare gift of pulling you into the movie and holding you there. This movie is one of the best movies I have seen yet. I watched it on Saturday and I still cannot get it out of my head. AMAZING and sad all at the same time. Thanks again Will. You must watch this movie from beginning to end to understand every part of the movie. You cannot miss a thing. Make sure you have plenty of Kleenex and your man/woman sitting next to you so you can cuddle. WELL Worth the money that you will pay to watch it.. don't wait for it to come on TV.

I saw this for free, thankfully, and wish it was better than it was, but it's really the same old stuff that movie studios seem to foist on us in the last ten years.<br /><br />Ben Stiller and Jennifer Anniston play a couple who are opposites- and yet they are attracted to each other.<br /><br />If that plot line doesn't take you by surprise and thrill you, the movie won't either.<br /><br />Lots of sight gags and fart jokes. Halfway through the movie I began to realize that Ben Stiller really isn't that funny, but he tries VERY hard. And Jennifer Anniston really isn't that pretty, but her HAIR looks great. And Hank Azaria and Phillip Seymore Hoffman must have got paid a great deal of money to be in this kind of average ho-hum movie, I've come to expect more from them.<br /><br />What was interesting was that I saw this after I saw American Splendor, which is a truly funny and original movie- and I compared the two in my head, and found myself wishing that the movie executives would be forced to sit through those two movies back to back- perhaps that would knock some sense into them and<br /><br />they'd start making better movies with unknowns rather than this formulaic stuff that plays best on airplanes.

This movie is still an all time favorite. Only a pretentious, humorless moron would not enjoy this wonderful film. This movie feels like a slice of warm apple pie topped with french vanilla ice cream! I think this is Cher's best work ever and her most believable performance. Cher has always been blessed with charisma, good looks, and an enviably thin figure. Whether you like her singing or not - who else sounds like Cher? Cher has definitely made her mark in the entertainment industry and will be remembered long after others have come and gone. She is one of the most unique artists out there. It's funny, because who would have thought of Cher as such a naturally gifted actress? She is heads above the so-called movie 'stars' of today. Cher is a real actor on the same level as Debra Winger, Alfre Woodard, Holly Hunter, Angela Bassett and a few others, in that she never seems to be 'acting,' she really becomes the character convincingly. She has more than earned the respect of her peers and of the movie-going public.<br /><br />Everything about Moonstruck is wonderful - the characters, the scenery, the dialog, the food. I never get tired of watching this movie.<br /><br />Every time single time I watch the scene where they are all sitting around the dinner table at Rose's house, I pause the remote to see exactly what delicious food Rose is serving. I saw the spaghetti, mushrooms (I think), but I can't make out whether they are eating ravioli, ziti? What is that main course? It looks wonderful and its driving me nuts! <br /><br />Everybody in that family was a hardworking individual and they respected and cared about one another. The grandfather wasn't pushed aside and tolerated, he was a vital part of the family and he was listened to and respected for his age and wisdom. He seemed to be a pretty healthy, independent old codger too.<br /><br />Loretta's mom wasn't 'just a housewife,' she was the glue that held the family together and was a model example of what a wife, mother, and home manager should aspire to be. She was proud of the lifestyle she had chosen but she didn't let it define who she was. High powered businessmen aren't as comfortable in their skin as Rose Casterini was. Notice the saucy way she said 'I didn't have kids until after I was 37. It ain't over 'til its over.' You got the sense that she had been the type of young woman who did exactly as she pleased and got her way without the other person realizing what had happened. She was charming, quick witted, and very smart. What a great mom! <br /><br />I didn't actually like Loretta right away because she seemed like a bit of a know--it-all who wasn't really as adventurous and as in control of herself as she wanted others to think. She could tell others about themselves and where they had gone wrong, but she really didn't apply common sense to her own life. She was going to marry a middle-aged mama's boy simply because she wanted a husband and a sense of identity and purpose to her life. She was more conventional than her own mom. She dressed and wore her hair like a matron at a house of detention and seemed humorless and bored, but underneath you sensed that she was vulnerable and lonely and had a lot of love to give the right man. She would probably end up making an awesome mom too.<br /><br />I could see in the future, a house full of Loretta and Ronnie's loud, screaming happy kids and Rose and Cosmo enjoying every minute of it.

Brilliant over-acting by Lesley Ann Warren. Best dramatic hobo lady I have ever seen, and love scenes in clothes warehouse are second to none. The corn on face is a classic, as good as anything in Blazing Saddles. The take on lawyers is also superb. After being accused of being a turncoat, selling out his boss, and being dishonest the lawyer of Pepto Bolt shrugs indifferently 'I'm a lawyer' he says. Three funny words. Jeffrey Tambor, a favorite from the later Larry Sanders show, is fantastic here too as a mad millionaire who wants to crush the ghetto. His character is more malevolent than usual. The hospital scene, and the scene where the homeless invade a demolition site, are all-time classics. Look for the legs scene and the two big diggers fighting (one bleeds). This movie gets better each time I see it (which is quite often).

Having listened to and enjoyed Harvey Bernhard's Omen II commentary I was shocked to discover he was also behind this absolute piece of rubbish. It's like a really bad TV movie you might glimpse in the middle of the day when you have the flu and are too ill to reach the remote. I think at the bit where Michael Lerner is confronted by what I can only describe as a high school cast of Les Miserables my mouth hung open in disbelief. And then my mouth was going up and down because I was laughing so much. Dire. I don't know why I have to write a minimum of ten lines, I have made my point succinctly, there's nothing clever about all this modern verbiage.

The beginning of this movie had me doubting that it would be little more than a typical B sci-fi flick. But, as it progressed I began to get interested and I saw the whole thing through. The premise is interesting, original, and has the makings of making a classic. Alas, it instead ended up a mediocre movie, done in by the usual factors which turn a potentially good movie into a bad movie (bad acting, low budget etc.). I'm interested to see how this would turn out if it were remade with good actors and a big hollywood budget.

I don't really know whether Cabin Fever is supposed to be a joke or a film... But as far as I know, it's much closer to being a joke than anything else. A few years ago, the community of horror film makers decided to take a new step and make fun of the genre, thus giving birth to the Scream series. A list was given in Scream, of all the stupid things horror film characters will do that are predictable, and the characters in Scream ended up doing exactly the same things, which added a lot of humor and irony to this analysis of the genre, and led to hope that horror films from now on would show a bit different, either full of irony towards the genre, self-derision towards the film itself, or at least different in their dramatic process than all the 'old' films that responded to the same tired criteria. In seeing 'Cabin Fever', alas, many will see how unoriginal, serious, pretentious, boring and even not scary some supposedly 'scary' films are now, even a few years later. First of all, this film lacks originality in a way few others do. It has been said several times, how little imagination horror directors have today, remaking remakes of foreign sequels, but setting the film in a cabin in the woods just doesn't seem to be an 'hommage' to anything, it seems to be, simply, a ripoff. Whoever wishes to be surprised by other factors of the film's story won't be: once again, we are dealing with a film whose characters are all in their early twenties, who won't think rationally when placed in front of a problem, will rather argue for hours and pick up fights than try to think and do something about it. Not much excitement there either. For the umpteenth time in a horror film, they are tempted to kiss, make love and just basically have fun, all sorts of things that don't really make them any different than any other horror film victims seen previously. Secondly, this film is unimaginatively serious. Every situation the characters are in, every dialog, every situation in the film is treated with such seriousness that any viewer with a little sense of derision will be relieved when some characters finally end up dying. Nothing in the way the film is directed, written or acted shows any sign of humor or sarcasm, which is quite amazing considering the film is about an invisible-never-heard-of-before-flesh-eating-virus (no laughs please). I won't even bring up the acting, since there are no actors in this film. The cast was most certainly hired for being friends or neighbors with the director. Thirdly, and this will strike whoever has seen a 'good' horror film before, the screenplay is absolutely empty. Nothing really happens, some actions are repeated several times ('let's try to get help!'), nothing makes sense, either in the facts, the psychology of the characters, or even the hilariously lame last sequence of the film, which is probably supposed to be funny according to the director and screenwriters. In the end I will only remark that a horror film is supposed to have something scary in it. Gallons of fake blood, whether they are being vomited, squirted from severed limbs or simply dripping from wounds, never were enough to scare an audience. Such major features as screenplay, ideas, and even cruelty are requested for whoever claims to have shot something scary. If I wasn't considering it to be a total failure, I would agree to reckon that the film has one talent: it is filthy disgusting to watch. Yet being grossed-out and being scared are two very different feelings, let it be known.<br /><br />I would like to encourage anyone a tad curious or interested in seeing this film to check older major horror films first, why not from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, films made by Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Roger Corman, William Lustig, John Carpenter... it might not only give a good definition of what is scary, or self-derisory horror, but also convince viewers that 'new' isn't necessarily 'better'. A good example related to the film is the few tracks composer Angelo Badalamenti provided for this film, even although they are unmistakably close to his previous compositions, they are below anything he has ever done before.

The oddly-named Vera-Ellen was to movie dancing what Sonja Henie was to movie ice-skating: blonde, girlish, always delightful to watch, but not an especially good actress and usually lumbered with weak material. When I watch Vera-Ellen's sexy apache dance with Gene Kelly in 'Words and Music', I can't help noticing that her blouse (yellow with narrow red horizontal stripes) seems to be made out of the South Vietnam flag. For some reason, the very American Vera-Ellen starred in *two* musicals (made several years apart) set in Edinburgh, a city not noted for its tap-dancers: 'Let's Be Happy' and 'Happy Go Lovely'.<br /><br />In the latter, Cesar Romero plays an American impresario who for some reason is staging a musical in Edinburgh. There's a vague attempt to link this show to the Edinburgh Festival, which is nonsense: the Festival is not a showcase for splashy leg-shows. We also see a couple of stock shots of the Royal Mile: apart from a few Highland accents, there's absolutely no attempt to convey Scottish atmosphere in this movie. The funniest gag occurs at the very beginning, when we learn that the title of Romero's show is 'Frolics to You': this is a cheeky pun that Britons will get and Yanks won't.<br /><br />Vera-Ellen is, as usual, cute and appealing and an impressive dancer, but the very few musical numbers in this movie are boring and bad. The plot -- mistaken identity between magnate David Niven and reporter Gordon Jackson -- is brainless, though no more so than the plots of several dozen Hollywood musicals. Romero is less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) he isn't required to convince us that he's interested in bedding the heroine.<br /><br />The single biggest offence of this movie is its misuse of Bobby Howes. The father of Sally Ann Howes was a major star of West End stage musicals; his wistful rendition of 'She's My Lovely' was a big hit in Britain in 1937. Here, he shows up in several scenes as Romero's dogsbody but never has a chance to participate in a musical number, nor even any real comedy. It's absolutely criminal that this movie -- with a title containing the word 'Lovely', sure to evoke Howes's greatest hit -- would cast a major British musical star but give him nothing to do!<br /><br />The delightful character actress Ambrosine Phillpotts (whom I worked with once) shines in one restaurant sequence, and there's a glimpse of the doomed beauty Kay Kendall. As Vera-Ellen's confidante, somebody named Diane Hart speaks in one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard: it sounds like an attempt to imitate Joan Greenwood and Glynis Johns both at the same go, but doesn't match either. Val Guest has a story credit, but this movie doesn't come up to the quality of his brilliant comedies. The colour photography is wretched, though I realise that postwar Britain could not afford Hollywood's process work. 'Happy Go Lovely' is at utmost best a pleasant time-waster, with 'waster' being the operative word. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.

Why is impossible to write in french ? Very Kitch! This journey in the center of the earth is despicable technical possibilities nevertheless current in 1976. These big 'Casimir' of monsters is completely ridiculous! The film deserve however a 'remake', as was 'KING KONG' (the last one), with a little more supplied scenario. The professor has resemblances with the Professor Calculus and is rather funny. David (the character) is enough inconsistent but cross(spend) to the people from below a good message ' you unite and will overcome you! ' Altogether we would say a film made in the 40s. Now that I said everything (or almost) the evil of which i thought of it, we can say that if we have the brain get tired or anything has to see of the other one, then the thing(matter) is even rather entertaining. Hugh! Such is my opinion! (translating French to English with 'Reverso' : sorry for possible mistakes !)

Gordon Parks, the prolific black Life magazine photographer, made a true ticking-timebomb of a movie here - one that does not mess around! Based upon the true story of two NYC cops - later dubbed Batman and Robin - who singlehandedly employed radical tactics to clean up their precinct neighborhood of drugs, this is a cop-buddy movie before that term became a repetitive formula. Lightning paced, there is not one unimportant throwaway scene here.<br /><br />Man, early '70s NYC must have been a terrible place to be a police officer, from the looks of movies like this and 'Serpico.' These two cops start out as safety-division rookies, busting dealers in plainclothes in their spare time. But instead of receiving applause from the city police department, they receive nothing but resistance and antagonism from their peers. They have to singlehandedly navigate a minefield of police and legal corruption, boneheaded assignments meant to keep them from their work on the streets, ruthless drug kingpins, and a nasty ghetto neighborhood.<br /><br />Both David Selby and Ron Leibman are fantastic in the leads; part of the entertainment is watching Leibman's eyes darting around crazily in every scene in what is a flawless comic performance, and Selby's acting is low-key and wry. These two make all the comedy aspects of the story work - displaying a palpable frustration mixed with gutsy determination. Director Parks, who was already known for his coverage of controversial subjects in his photography, does not shy away from the grittiness of the story. Rather, the movie is uncompromising in portrayal of the toughness of the world of police and streets criminals that these two men inhabit. Adding to this realism is the fact that the real Hantz and Greenberg acted as technical advisors for the film, and even appear in surreal cameo roles as two fellow officers who ridicule the protagonists. It is a real tribute to the effectiveness of Parks' direction that he manages to perfectly balance this depressing mileu with bright comedy.<br /><br />Why has MGM/UA let this sit on the shelf for 30 years - barely giving it a home video or DVD release in the U.S? It is a minor masterpiece from the 1970s.

Horror-genius Dario Argento is one of my personal favorite directors, and his films 'Suspiria', 'Phenomena' and 'Profondo Rosso' range high on my personal all-time favorite list. 'Opera' of 1987 is yet another tantalizing and brilliant film that no Horror lover can afford to miss, and that will keep you on the edge of your chair from the beginning to the end. This stunning and ultra-violent Giallo could well be described as the master's nastiest film, which is quite something considering that Argento's films are not exactly known for the tameness of their violence. The violence is extreme and very stylized in a brilliant way that makes Opera a film censor's nightmare.<br /><br />- Warning! SPOILERS ahead! - <br /><br />Just when Betty (Christina Marsillach), a young opera singer, is becoming successful, a murderous and incredibly sadistic psychopath starts stalking her... The murders are truly brutal, and of particularly sadistic nature. The killer attaches needles to the tied up Betty's eyelids, so she has to keep them open and watch while he brutally murders people close to her in abhorrent ways. When done with the butchering, the killer releases Betty and leaves, just to come back for other friends of hers...<br /><br />As usual for Argento's films, the violence is extremely graphic and very stylized. 'Opera' truly is a brutal film, and what a stylish and atmospheric film it is. This film is absolutely tantalizing and pure suspense from the beginning to the end. The performances are entirely very good, especially Christina Marsillach is brilliant in the lead. A stunning beauty and great actress alike, Marsillach fits perfectly in her role of the talented singer, whose fear and horrid experiences are slowly making her crazy. Other great performances include those of Ian Charleston as a Horror film director who is directing an Opera, and director Argento's real-life girlfriend Daria Nicolodi, who has a role in many of his movies. The camera work is excellent as in all Argento films and The huge Opera House is an excellent setting that contributes a lot both to the film's beauty and its permanently creepy atmosphere. The score, which is partly classical music and partly heavy metal is great too, even though I slightly missed Goblin's brilliant Progressive Rock Soundtracks that are such a distinguishing element of most other Argento movies. 'Opera' truly is a terrifying and absolutely breathtaking Giallo experience. This is an absolute must-see for any Horror lover, and I highly recommend it to any other film-fan who is not too sensitive when it comes to extreme violence. Excellent and absolutely tantalizing!

Take your basic Frankenstein flick, inject some Reanimator (but not the good parts), and you have Doctor Hackenstein. Certainly, this was obviously inspired by aforementioned films but it never materializes as anything special on its own.<br /><br />A scientist accidentally kills his wife, so the whole movie takes place over the course of one night as he attempts to revive his wife. To revive his wife, he decides to chop off body parts from some women that have become stranded and, coincidentally, decide to stay the night at his place.<br /><br />I can't really say the acting is bad, nor is the directing. Everything here is just way too standard. What little attempts there are at humor actually work (check out the scene when Hackenstein keeps hiding behind his deaf assistant because she would undoubtedly be very upset if she saw him clutching a woman and a needle), but that's hardly enough to recommend this film. The music is decent, what blood that's there is decent, and the cast looks quite good. And for half of the time, I was even entertained by this film. But I never felt like this was anything more than a time waster. Avoidable.<br /><br />Try Frankenhooker instead.

First, they ruin it with the uniquely bad animation quality, then, they get voices that sound nothing like the original. They make sooo many movie mistakes. When Sasha is singing in Count Me Out, the drummer disappears and then reappears, Itchy's shirt keeps changing color, his hat keeps changing position, one of the bridge is white, everyone in the background appears fat, halos keep changing colors and appearing and disappearing. Even heaven appears different. I don't give a damn if this is a low budget film, they shouldn't cut corners on animation. They completely ruined the first ADGTH. The only good thing about this movie was the soundtrack.

Unlike Tinseltown's version of HELLO, DOLLY!, Jay Presson Allen's screen adaptation of Ira Levin's hit Broadway thriller couldn't wait for it's stage incarnation to shutter before putting it up on the silver screen, so producers wisely decided to make the most of it's lengthy White Way run! The film's opening and closing scenes are shot inside New York's intimate Music Box Theater where DEATHTRAP played for nearly five years. Even the film's final fadeout on the theatre marquee is a version of the stageplay's famous logo. (Although marketeers decided to go with a more fun Rubik's Cube icon for the movie.)<br /><br />Now on a low-priced DVD release, DEATHTRAP seems just as fresh and inventinve as ever. The cast is just right (better than their stage counterparts) and location scouts should be applauded for finding a suitably spooky house for our 'one room, two act thriller' to take place in. Opened up in surprisingly simple and innovative ways, director Sidney Lumet wisely tags any 'new' material onto the beginning and end of the film and leaves Levin's wickedly twisty center alone.<br /><br />The film's last scene is a major Hollywood departure from the boards, and slightly undermines one of Levin's plot points from earlier in the film [Helga (about a dagger): 'Will be used by another woman BECAUSE of play.']. Like Robert Altman's THE PLAYER, however, our new finale helps the film fold in on itself once again and blurs the lines between stage, screen, and (could it be?) real life!

Travolta, Thurman, The Rock, Vaughn, Keitel and so on. One should think that this star parade of great actors could really heat up this movie, but no. Travolta takes on the role as Chili Palmer again, but this time we have already seen the gangster who tries hes luck in the hard world of movie making, its not funny anymore. This is a typically problem in Hollywood, they think that if the first was good, the second will be twice as good, NO, the first was original, the second cant be, Hey Hollywood try to understand originality cant be duplicated, you got to give us a new twist, not just the same movie again made with a bigger budget. I constantly found my selves Hardly laughing when I was watching this movie, but still it got a lot of cool actors like Harvey Keitel, James Woods, Vince Vaughn and The Rock and for that and that only! <br /><br />4/10

This movie was SO stupid~!!! I could not bare to watch the rest of this movie..... To think that the spoiled bitch suggested to see other people, then walks right into another relationship 5 minutes after the agreement was made.... I really felt sorry for the guy, but then again, for a guy like that to even consider letting his fiancé see other people, to go along with her grand idea, well, I'm sorry but, he deserved what he got~! And she was definitely not the best fish in the sea either, he can do way, way, way better.... She had no tits.... to hips.... no nothing~! And you had to have known that she wanted this right from the start... 5 years~??? How on earth did they last that long~???

I know one is not supposed to comment on other users' comments, but I will say that a lot of the negative reviews seem to come from people who already knew quite a lot about the Manhattan Project and were annoyed at things that were left out. (From his book 'Smoking In Bed' it appears the original screenwriter Bruce Robinson is another such.) I knew very little before watching the film, however, and found it rivetting. Dwight Schultz is absolutely mesmeric as Oppenheimer - a truly magnetic, charismatic presence, an inspired piece of casting that makes me wonder why he isn't given better roles and more leading parts. John Cusack and Paul Newman are excellent as always. One could quibble with various script or direction choices, but as it is the film is extremely intense and horrific at times and overall I give it four stars out of five.

I've seen this amusing little 'brit flick'many times. The only problem is Its currently unavailable on video or DVD. I'ts certainly a contender for a DVD release. The much missed Richard Jordan plays 'pinky' an Ex-pat American, whose Just been released from prison,he finds himself A job as an Electrician in a bank, it all goes well until he finds Himself Embroiled in a bank heist with his ex cronies, David Niven Plays the mastermind Ivan, Its an enjoyable little romp, hopefully studio canal or anchor bay, will come to the Rescue. Look out for john Rhys Davies Before he struck it big with 'shogun' Raiders of the lost Ark 'Lord Of The Rings' In a small role as a barrister,

I saw this at a screening last night too. I was totally blown away at how much better this movie was than what I expected. Not many movies can combine dark comedy and current event drama and not have it fall apart in the conclusion.<br /><br />I won't bother rehashing the plot too much because I think the less you know about this movie going into it makes it that much better. But I will say that Adam Sandler's performance was really refreshing and real. He was funny, and much funnier than most of his most recent comedies. Don Cheadle was believable as always.<br /><br />This movie isn't funny like Borat or Billy Madison but it has a good pace about it. I'd say 90% of the audience laughed for most of the film. Midway through the movie slows down to address the drama end of things and does a really nice job of tying it all together.<br /><br />I also thought it was really cool how instead of playing up the whole black friend/white friend thing they chose to just ignore it and focus on the relationships themselves.

The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in 'Vertigo', released the same year as this film, but then 'Vertigo' had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.<br /><br />The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can.

I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10

It's hard to believe people actually LIKE this dreck! I do think kids can enjoy it, but to me it's the kind of kid film parents can't bear to sit through. Predictable plot, boring Belushi, and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. I will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid, but she was truly painful to watch. I feel embarrassed for her now, having people know it was her. When she sang the Star Spangled Banner I had to turn the sound off--then I came here and discovered they did that because she won Star Search. I've always felt Jim Belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful, sadly missed brother, and this crap shows why. Zero stars.

I'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.<br /><br />If you read the 'scholars' regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.<br /><br />There are a few moments where you might cry, 'Aha! surrealism!': a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early work.

Just got back from the European Premiere of The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.<br /><br />All I can say is that if you are a gamer (CRPG, RPG or LARP), then this movie is for you. And if you're not a gamer? Well, it's still a great deal of fun.<br /><br />The acting is certainly not Oscar-worthy, but in the whole element of the movie it adds to the charm. The humour is everywhere, along with some very nice touches (the tribute to Gary Gygax is especially well done, if you can spot it). The cast are very down to earth in their appearance, befitting the fact that they are ordinary people enjoying an ordinary hobby.<br /><br />The quality of the movie's sound and vision are adequate, but again, it all just adds to the atmosphere that helps to define this movie as being the Dungeons and Dragons movie, written and performed by gamers for gamers.<br /><br />Not afraid to use terminology specific to one system, they still manage to allow product placement to be a part of the movie, but in a very understandable and utterly fair manner. It also touches on some of the perceived prejudices that some gamers can have about other gamers and deals with that quite well.<br /><br />All in all the movie is very much driven by an well-thought-out equal balance of character, plot and entertainment (the Bard is amazingly good value-for-money).<br /><br />In the end it does make scoring this movie quite hard, so I have given it 2 scores.<br /><br />Score (for non-RP'ers): 7/10 (A few moments could go way over your head, but the main sections of the movie just work so hard and achieve so much more.)<br /><br />Score (for RP'ers): 10/10 (Everything fits together, in the perfect quantities, and with the perfect charm and sentiment)

I'm writing this as I watch the DVD. I grabbed for the laptop and went to IMDb during the first song. I didn't know anything about the movie except that a friend said that the show was supposed to be good. It has a decent Netflix rating too, so here I am.<br /><br />Maybe on the stage this worked. But I have to say that the sight of chorus boys dancing and singing completely naked just seems silly. And the lip syncing to a prerecorded score adds to the strangeness.<br /><br />Most of the songs and routines are about aspects of male nudity. This is my idea of nothing, sorry. The score, so far, is generic show tune music. Nothing memorable, or particularly melodic. Everything is to serve the lyrics. Which, I have to say, sound like they were written by a committee. Each song is essentially one extended joke. If the jokes were ten seconds, they might work. These single several-minute-long jokes don't.<br /><br />I'm now watching the movie by chapters--a few minutes until I get the gist. Kind of in the hopes that one of them will be different, or entertaining enough to keep me from going on to the next scene. Nope.<br /><br />Okay. I'm finished. So here's what I think. If you have any experience or long-standing appreciation of musical theater, avoid this--it's just not quality. If, however, you're a gay twenty-something and have never seen or heard a musical comedy, you might be entertained. Or maybe this would hold your interest if you've never seen a lot of attractive naked men. <br /><br />I have.

Firstly, this is simply the funniest movie I have ever seen. It incorporates perfectly-timed slapstick, sexual humour, and cleverly-thought-up stand-up. But it goes deeper than that. The Souler Opposite is an original love story (something we don't see that often) that gave me hope that there is love out there;that two people who love each other can work through their adversity; and that such a comedic take on life (something I believe we all should have) can be accepted by the people that really matter. Chris Meloni gives a such a convincing performance as Barry Singer that he should have won an oscar. The film is brilliantly written and I hope we will be seeing more films from everyone involved in the future.

Bud Abbott and Lou Costello always had a good following among children, but in their careers I think you could say that they only made one film that could be designated for kids. Jack and the Beanstalk was that one film.<br /><br />It was part of a two picture independent deal from Warner Brothers, the second film being Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd. These were the only two films the boys made in color. <br /><br />The two of them, out of work as usual, take a job for a very precocious and obnoxious young David Stollery as a babysitter. Although it starts out with Costello wanting to read the kid, Jack and the Beanstalk as a bedtime story, the young lad winds up reading it to Costello. Lou falls asleep and in his dreams he fantasizes he's indeed Jack the Giant Killer.<br /><br />Buddy Baer who menaced the boys in Africa Screams plays the giant and he's got a giant size Dorothy Ford as his housekeeper. Dorothy was a big girl, 6'2', and you can imagine she had some difficulty being cast except when her height was used as a joke. One of the only players who ever looked down at her was John Wayne in Three Godfathers at 6'4'. Henry Fonda and James Stewart in On Our Merry Way also stood barely above her, but again her height was part of a gag.<br /><br />Shaye Cogan and James Alexander were the princess and prince of the fantasy and they sang beautifully, but couldn't act worth anything. This was the last film of William Farnum who's career dated from the early silent screen days and even to the turn of the last century on stage. He played princess Shaye's father the king.<br /><br />Some not terribly memorable musical numbers came from Jack and the Beanstalk, save the title song. I well remember as a kid having the 78 record of Bud and Lou singing the song and reciting the story. I was in my early single digit years, but became a lifelong fan of their's through that and their television series.<br /><br />Jack and the Beanstalk is still a good children's picture for the very young, though I would warn parents to warn their little urchins not to imitate young master Stollery.

I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.<br /><br />But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.<br /><br />The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.<br /><br />The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.<br /><br />It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.<br /><br />If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD.

Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies 'hottie' to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.<br /><br />If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!

It's funny how your life can change in a second... To attend ''The Waterdance'' for the first time it was an unforgettable experience, the way you need to get used to a new way of life it can seem frightening, and to notice that there are other people going by a similar situation it can help you to go on. <br /><br />Eric Stoltz's performances and mainly of Helen Hunt (oh man!, Helen is the purest and graceful woman in earth...) are wonderful, Wesley Snipes also surprises in one of your last serious roles. A film simple and at the same time deep that doesn't get to leave us indifferent to the message that is transmitted: enjoy each moment of your life...<br /><br />Really to a film as that the any hour is not attended!!! (sorry, it's a Brazilian expression...).