Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

'Classes tous risques' is one of the best 'gangsters' films noirs France has ever produced.Perfect cast :Lino Ventura,a young Jean -Paul Belmondo (who made 'a bout de souffle',Godard's thing, the same year),Marcel Dalio and a fine supporting cast ;brilliant script by José Giovanni -who also wrote 'le trou' Becker's masterpièce the same year!What a year for him!;wonderful black and white cinematography by Ghislain Cloquet.And taut action,first-class directing by Claude Sautet,who surpasses Jean-Pierre Melville .Whereas the latter films gangsters movie with metaphysical pretensions,which sometimes lasts more than two hours,Claude Sautet directs men of flesh and blood,and the presence of the two children adds moments of extraordinary poignancy which Melville has never been able to generate .And Sautet avoids pathos,excessive sentimentality:the last time Ventura sees his children,coming down in the metro (subway)is a peak of restrained emotion.<br /><br />Ventura portrays a gangster whose die is cast when the movie begins.He thinks that he can rely on his former acquaintances ,but they are all cowards -we are far from manly friendship dear to Jacques Becker ('touchez pas au grisbi' ) which Melville was to continue throughout the sixties-sometimes abetted by mean women (the film noir misogyny par excellence),living in a rotten microcosm,ready to inform on -we are far from Jean Seberg's simplistic behavior in Godard's 'opus'-.<br /><br />Cloquet works wonders with the picture:the scene on the beach in a starless night when the two children see their mother die after the shoot-out with the customs officers is absolutely mind-boggling.<br /><br />There's a good use of voice-over,which Sautet only uses when necessary;thus ,the last lines make the ending even stronger than if we have attended the scenes.<br /><br />Claude Sautet had found a good niche ,and he followed the 'classes tous risques' rules quite well with his follow-up 'l'arme à gauche' (1965) which featured Ventura again and made a good use of a desert island and a ship.Had he continued in that vein,France would have had a Howard Hawks.In his subsequent works ,only 'Max et les ferrailleurs ' (1971) showed something of the brilliance he displayed in the first half of the sixties.He had become ,from 'les choses de la vie' onwards,the cinema de qualité director who used to focus on tender-hearted bourgeois in such works as 'Cesar et Rosalie' (1972),'Vincent François ,Paul et les autres' (1974) or 'Mado' (1976)

I want the 99 minutes of my life back that was wasted on this pathetic excuse for a movie. The acting was horrific! I used to be a fan of Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio. I will never look at them the same again. Keanu Reeves and Dan Aykroyd were not a surprise. Everyone knows they never could act. Thankfully, only Dan attempted an accent. His accent was a disaster as expected. I think he was either confused about the location of the film or had never actually spoken to anyone from Minnesota. I hope this review helps anyone who is undecided about what to do with their precious time. The only reason I was able to sit through the whole movie was because I was stuck somewhere without anything better to watch or read.

A very funny east-meets-west film influenced by the closure of GM's Flint, Michigan plant in the eighties and the rise and integration of Japanese automakers in the US. Set in western Pennsylvania, it features great performances by Michael Keaton, Gedde Watanabe, and George Wendt. Music by blues legend Stevie Ray Vaughan.

This low-budget film about a writer who goes to work in a London casino has an awful script, wooden performances, and not much to recommend it. Of course it will appeal to highbrows for whom 'mainstream' is a curse word, and who automatically add 20 IQ points when they hear a British accent (apologies to Jeff Foxworthy).<br /><br />The script is full of holes (has he written a book yet, or not?), cliches (relationship trouble: she works days, he works nights), and provides so little insight into such basics as character motivation that it requires a voice-over narration just to move the story along.<br /><br />In an attempt to keep the audience from dozing off, it includes a street fight scene that is about as realistic as a high school production of Julius Caesar.<br /><br />If your idea of scintillating dialogue is 'I'll see your ten, and raise you twenty', then RUN to see this movie. Otherwise, save your money.<br /><br />

On MTV cribs all the ballers and shot callers pull the classic movie Scarface out of their DVD collection. This may give you an idea that Scarface is a 'gangster movie'. Sure, there are gangsters and mobs in it, but that's not the point of Scarface. Tony Montana (Al Pacino) is just a cuban refuge looking for a new way of life. He falls in with the mob group and becomes a well-known drug lord. Montana was all for doing what you wanted to do with your life. The classic phrase: 'Say hello to my little friend!' is in Scarface. This quote is what always comes to mind when I think about Brian DePalmas movie, Scarface. This falls under my top 10 favorite movies. I would rate it ***1/2 (out of ****). Definitely a movie you must see. PHENOMENAL.

Good idea....shame about the actual movie. Would of liked it to be a bit more scary, and explain more about the characters and who exactly the evil woman was? If she was torturing those kids why were they helping her kill and not helping others kill her?? Its a bit of a come down from Malcolm in the Middle!<br /><br />I think it would of benefited from being slightly longer and going into more detail with the characters, although after about an hour I was wondering when it would end!!<br /><br />Would of been better too if the actual characters that killed them were not computerise in reality, it sort of made them crap looking. And what happened to the Frankie Munitz character? He fell into a bed of wild roses so should of been safe, however the computer game showed him as game over, ie dead. Next thing he appears with that irritating blonde lass to rescue the guy afraid of fire who, I noticed, had no qualms about flipping the lighter when demon lady was after him!!<br /><br />Too many inconsistencies in this movie to really enjoy it, however, might make you think twice about playing that new computer game!!

A powerful 'real-tv' movie. Very subversive and therefore remaining almost un-broadcasted ! (almost...thanx 2 arte in France). After you've watched this manhunt all movies filmed with the same concept (a documentary team following the events as they arrived) seem so weak.<br /><br />DAVID

I don't leave IMDb comments about films but this.... this film was bad. very bad. I fast forwarded through most of it, stopping where I hoped the acting had improved since the last scene, only to continue with the fast forwards. Formula plot -- once the obvious murderers were discounted, there was only the one left. And that was in the first five minutes. Scene by scene it felt as though I'd already read the script before because there were no surprises, no mystery. The Tori character... bad bad acting. A true waste of time on DVD and a definite 'let's go to bed early' option if it's the only thing on television. If you watch this film, you will find yourself realising you'll never be able to get back the time you've just wasted.

I find it disconcerting that in an era when satisfying and fulfilling spirituality is unknown and we are all scattered across the whole spectrum of possible beliefs, that a charlatan and fraud of Gurdjieff's caliber (as a charlatan, he is exceptional; there is no denying he had a special gift. It's a pity he misused it, though, for the aggrandizement of his wounded ego, feeding on the adulation of unwary sheep who were at his beck and call and in awe of him) can inspire such extreme adherence and credulity. This movie presents an idealized version of Gurdjieff's own largely fictional and fantastic account of his formation and 'awakening' (which I would rather describe as his discovery of how much he could sway the minds and wills of certain types of sadly disoriented people). See it, if you dare to have a disagreeable eye-opening about how sadly deprived we are of true religious leaders, to the extent that a clown like Gurdjieff could inspire such devotion - and be careful to have your blood pressure medicine at hand if you are one of those who still hope for a healthy religion to emerge from the ruins of Christianity, as a supreme example of cinematography at the entire service of the premises and pretenses of a dysfunctional cult.

magellan33 said: 'You can only do so much when the two stars of the show can only be seen by one fellow cast member.'<br /><br />I assume, then, that you never heard of 'Topper'.<br /><br />Which, in addition to the two stars who could only be seen by one member of the cast, had a dog, ditto.<br /><br />This was the kind of program that had 'Not Gonna Make It' written allover it from the first episode - it was like an arcade video game where you actually have to read the instructions to play; no-one (well, very few of us, apparently) wants to watch a comedy program that has a basic premise that actually requires *thought* to grasp.

If you like me enjoy films with plots and convincing actors then Alien Vs Predator- Requiem is probably not the way to go. In summary, alien lands in typical American town, Predator lands in American town, both have a bit of a fight, US government blows up town, some people get away.....I'm sorry I think I might have spoilt the ending. Its easy to criticise someone who's being critical; people cry out, I bet you couldn't do any better! I bet I could ! Having made this film,watched it and then turned to congratulate each other with a pat on the back and a job well done; there must surely have been the spectre of lunacy in the room.

This is the magnum opus from the Swedish king of crap, Mats-Helge Olsson. Seldom has a movie of this magnitude been made in Sweden and it truly stands out as one of the most amazing achievements in Swedish film to date. Who pays for these things? <br /><br />The Russian nuclear scientist Markov wants to defect to Sweden. But his plans are ruined by the Russian military who kidnap him and tell him that he has arrived in Sweden. This trickery is their way of seeing to that Markov continues his work in nuclear physics that will revolutionize the energy supply for the whole planet. The CIA however is bent on getting Markov to the west and send their ninja to liberate him.<br /><br />The practice of having Swedish actors speaking English is something that Mats-Helge has perfected in his later works. The cheap b-movie feeling this creates is probably unmatched for performance. But besides this? Well the action is standard direct-to-video style. Machine guns firing huge clouds of smoke. Thousands of Russians dying. People running around in black ninja suits, trying to hide in the snow.<br /><br />What really stands out though is the insanely poor way the fighting scenes are choreographed. When they say 'Ninja' in the title i expect martial arts, i expect close combat. But there are maybe two or three scenes of actual martial arts in this movie. And they are hilarious. It's so bad i lack the words to describe it. If the ninjas moved any slower their hearts would stop. And of course the whole movie ends in a bang that indicates a special-effects budget consisting of four food-stamps and a McDonald's voucher.<br /><br />So what's the verdict? Instant classic of course. Never before has a movie been made that is so obviously meant to be consumed along with huge amounts of alcohol. It's the ultimate party movie. Insert into video and laugh. One just has to realize that movies like these are not made any more. This is film history.<br /><br />Therefore the rating is 8/10 for entertainment, 1/10 for quality and 10/10 for accents.

Somewhere in USA, the young Clair manipulates her friends Mic, Billy and John, showing a letter that would be sent by Bob to her and the group cowardly beats Bob and Mic kills him with a piece of wood in the forest. Mic feels sorrow and decides to tell his mother what he did, but John and Billy threaten him, with tragic consequences.<br /><br />I believe 'The Wind' is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The awful screenplay is ridiculous, and it is almost impossible to write a summary, since there is no story or plot, only sequences of disconnected scenes. The amateurish direction and acting are amazingly poor and terrible. It is unbelievable how producers invest money in such garbage, distributors release this crap worldwide and viewers like me buy this DVD. I waited until the very last scene because I was curious to see how bad this film could be and I was impressed, since it is worse than I could imagine in my lowest expectations. In the end, I question why IMDb does not offer zero in the vote system, since the garbage really deserves this vote. My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Força Invisível' ('Invisible Force')

This was a well written tale of the Making of the Batman Sitcom and actually reunites our heroes on a great quest as well as offers their TV shows history. Unlike the Brady's and Partridge family documentary movies we not only get a look into the past and present lives of Adam and Burt , but also get to see them back in action. Filled with Kapow's and catwomen and the Riddler(s), Batman is back ina well told , tale that not only gives us a satisfactory closing to the Batman series , but fills the modern fan in on all the hollywood tales that about them that haven't been heard in 35 years.<br /><br />Kudos!!!

I do not remember, at least in the last ten years or so, a movie that I have liked less than Mama Mia. From the non-existent acting to the atrocious singing, I was cringing at least once per minute. I don't believe I could even recall one brief segment that I tolerated. I do know that I will never watch this disaster again. I cannot believe that with such high expectations due to the talent - Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, that a movie could be such a flop. But to see the lack of acting skills shown, the seemingly drug-induced dancing, and then, horrors of horrors, to hear the singing of Pierce Brosnan(!), I cannot see how this movie will not make it into the hall of shame. Definitely, a movie that never should have been made, and just in case you missed it the first time, one that I will never watch again.

James Dickey is a wonderfully descriptive author. When one reads 'Deliverance', one is instantly transported into the lush backwoods of the Deep South. When one watches John Boorman's film version of the book, one realizes just how accurately he captures the essence of the book. The camera is as descriptive as the narration. The characters are fully realized, and the portrayals are fantastic. I first saw this movie in 1992, after my freshman year of college. I was in a phase where I was watching movies that were all released within a couple of years of my birth in 1973. Among them were 'Patton', 'Papillon', and 'All the President's Men'; fine films, all of them. This one was easily the class of the group. That says a lot.

From rainy, dreary late winter England of early 1920s...<br /><br />---where there is still sadness and many young widows and disabled vets from the great slaughter of men and killer of their womens' dreams--- known now as World War I...<br /><br />Four women share this lovely small sunny Italian castle on a hill; one a young widow who is drowning her sorrow in frantic partying, two women who will rediscover their own husbands, and a fourth woman who is tired of her famous dead friends...<br /><br />...These four women will come together with two husbands and a former soldier - almost blind - to get a spiritual 'makeover' for one great April vacation in early 1920's Italy.<br /><br />NOTE to would-be filmmakers. Study this film for how mood and beauty can tell a story. (Probably not a film to please many men...)<br /><br />NOTE: Stock up on coffee & hot chocolate and invite the girls over on some dreary late winter day...Spring is coming...Enchanted April promises you!

Too Much of Something Borrowed Grade B-<br /><br />Super Bowl Sunday is one of the slowest days at movie theaters every year. Because of this, movie studios tend to avoid releasing bigger budgeted films that weekend. Every few years a studio releases a counter-programming female skewing movie (2001's 'The Wedding Planner') to compete with the big game. This Super Bowl weekend similarly titled 'The Wedding Date' will try to find success and attract viewers not watching the game. <br /><br />Sick of people feeling sorry for her, single-woman, Kat Ellis (Debra Messing, TV's 'Will and Grace') hires male escort Nick ( Dermot Mulrony, 'About Schmidt') to pose as her boyfriend for her sister's wedding in London. Her family has been giving her a hard time about her not being married, and her ex- fiancé of seven years, who dumped her without a reason, is the best man. To make him jealous Kat parades Nick around her ex to make him see what he is missing. But ultimately Nick helps Kat realize that she can open up, and let someone love her.<br /><br />The film borrows too much from similar wedding movies. It is almost a carbon copy of 1999's 'Picture Perfect' and mixes in scenes similar to 'The Wedding Planner' and 'My Best Friends Wedding'. The movie also has a reverse 'Pretty Women' theme going for it, and knowing her audience, the director makes clever references to that and other films.<br /><br />'The Wedding Date' has all the clichéd elements of a typical wedding movie, there is the stereotypical overbearing mother (Holland Taylor, 'Legally Blonde'), and practically plagiarized wedding speeches by the family and friends at the wedding and rehearsal dinner. The twist at the ending has been done before, but it was something that wasn't completely expected. The real reason why Kat was dumped comes as a surprise and changes the direction of the film for the last half hour.<br /><br />Even though 'The Wedding Date' is predictable, it is able to stand on its own. Debra Messing, in her first lead role, proves she can be charming and funny. Dermot Mulrony has great chemistry with Debra Messing, but most of his dialogue was too corny and unrealistic. He is able to make best of what he is given, and be able to salvage the character. <br /><br />By the use of many clever puns (often sexual), the film is actually funny. Although primarily a chick-flick the film has components everyone can enjoy. The feel good story, and humor make it the best date movie released in a long time.

I've avoided seeing this film for some time but finally picked up a copy. Having been born too late to see 'Hair' in its contemporary setting, I have just been familiar with the UK and Broadway cast recordings for many years; and saw it on stage in the late 1980s where it looked a little creaky but still, great fun.<br /><br />The film. It drops some of the songs (The Bed, My Conviction, Frank Mills) and cuts others (Walking in Space). However, what is left is presented very well indeed. All the singers and dancers are excellent, and the key performers (especially Treat Williams as Berger, Beverley D'Angelo as Sheila, John Savage as Claude) are memorable.<br /><br />As a hippy celebration and anthem, 'Hair' manages to be remain potent even in a film made ten years too late. It was no longer the era of peace, love, and Biba, but the time of punk rock ... although watching this film now, in the time of Iraqi problems, gives a new resonance to the Vietnam issues of the 1960s.<br /><br />Milos Forman, who also made 'Amadeus', did a good job on directing. In its scope and feel it reminds me of Norman Jewison's 'Jesus Christ Superstar', especially with the joy of the 'Aquarius' scene and the intimacy of 'Easy To Be Hard'.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this film and consider it a good representation of a musical born out of the first truly hedonistic era.

I thought this was an extremely bad movie. The whole time I was watching this movie I couldn't help but think over and over how bad it is, and how that was $3.69 down the drain. The plot was so jumpy. They did an excellent job at the beginning of explaining who dated who in high school, but they never really explained anything after that. Was it a supernatural thriller? Was it a regular thriller? Apparently you can decide for yourself, because they didn't see the need to explain. I understood basically what happened, I think. What I got confused about was all of it prior, what was the deal with the bloody noses, phone calls, etc.? Was this guy coming back? Was the wife channeling 'Carrie' or something? Who knows? You certainly won't after watching this movie.

The cast really helps make this a pleasant surprise and a cut above the normal man-vs.-woman-argue-all-the-time-but-wind up-in love-type of Hollywood screwball romance/comedy.<br /><br />I usually don't go for those type of films and that tiresome storyline but this one was refreshing, fun to watch, and oozes with charm.<br /><br />Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play off each other well and make a very handsome couple. The supporting cast is outstanding - from the always-likable Felix Bressart to the villain Joseph Schildkraut. <br /><br />Frank Morgan also plays one of the most interesting characters I've ever seen him do in his career. He takes the film and turns it around into a whole different mood for awhile when something dramatic happens to him. That 'twist' is another reason this film rises above others of its kind.<br /><br />Once again, when a film has a good mix of categories, it usually succeeds. This is a great example of that. In this movie, it's romance, comedy and drama and it's well done. I'll take this over the re-make 'You've Got Mail,' any day. No comparison.

This movie was featured on a very early episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but when I see this film, I don't think about that wonderful TV series. I believe this was a surprisingly good early 40's horror flick, with very surprisingly good sound and picture for a 67 year old public domain horror movie. I actually enjoyed watching Bela Lugosi and his bizarre staff, including his wife who requires fluid from the glands of young would-be brides, an old hag, and her two bizarre sons, one a giant idiot, the other a comical dwarf(Angelo Rossitto from 1932's Freaks). I also enjoyed the plucky young female reporter, who is kind of a stereotype, but still fun to watch. My only problem with this otherwise decent film is it's plot, even ridiculous and unbelievable for a movie. I don't want to spoil any of this film, so go out and rent it, or, better yet, buy it for a couple of bucks.

Seeing this film, or rather set of films, in my early teens irrevocably changed my idea of the possibilities of human interaction and the range of potential experience. This monumental exploration of individuals, and their historical setting, reveals how full bodied and intense every human existence is. The people are portrayed as they are to themselves: their experiences of the smallest to the largest internal and external phenomena are detailed with the greatest of artistry and perception. Edgar Reitz displays a fabulous appreciation of human motivations and longings.<br /><br />When these phenomena are set against the immense time allowed by the length of the work, one cannot help but apprehend the force and vivacity of happiness, defeat, lust, love, sadness, melancholy, that each person feels. When I saw these films I perceived my future experiences, how my life would inevitably twist and oscillate due to both intended and accidental events. I acquired a feeling of the longevity of being and what it meant to reflect upon past lives, memories and contexts. A masterpiece and a revelation. I only wish the BBC would screen it again.<br /><br />If anyone knows where I can get a copy, could they contact me

I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi. <br /><br />The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various 'erotic' sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.<br /><br />All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!

Kazuo Komizu strikes again with 'Entrails of a Beautiful Woman', the sequel to 'Entrails of a Virgin'. This time around the story is based around a psychologist (Megumi Ozawa) who decides to take on the Yakuza to avenge the suicide of a doped-up and raped patient that winds up on her doorstep one day. When she gets over her head and the Yakuza capture her, she learns their insidious plat of doping up girls and selling them into slavery. It apparently ends badly when she overdoses from the cocaine. But she soon melds with another body to be disposed of to become…dum, dum, dum – 'Super Slime Hermaphrodite Zord'! This he, she = it makes mince meat out of the yakuza and saves the day…not really.<br /><br />Well it is better than 'Entrails of a Virgin', but not by much. Most of the film (a whopping 67 minutes) consists of rape and sex with fogging and the usual ho-hum stuff. Almost towards the end we finally get our gore groove on with a few cool sequence (like an Alien-inspired penis-monster through the stomach scene and a gooey asphyxiation) but it still suffers from a hyper low budget feel that makes it fun but can't elevate it from z-grade soft horror-core fare.

I myself am a physics student, and I have to say I think this is one of the best 'popular' introductions to string theory that's out there. The Elegant Universe manages to make the entire topic of string (although it's actually M) theory accessible to a wider audience.<br /><br />Some 'popular science' programmes feel that the best approach is just to throw the audience in at the deep end, throwing technical jargon at them without so much as an explanation, and presenting the theory in a boring, stale style. This programme goes through concepts such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, and explains the issues that need to be resolved between the two so we have a coherent theory that can be applied to the universe on both a large and small scale.<br /><br />I suppose some could say it's slow and takes too long to get to the interesting stuff like extra dimensions and wormholes, but the thing is: that's against the point. Explaining string theory from the start is nigh on impossible without at least mentioning the physics at its base, and the way it's explained in The Elegant Universe is clear and entertaining.<br /><br />Whether you'll like this program really does depend on if you're willing to perhaps be initially dumbfounded by some of the ideas that Greene presents: extra dimensions and warping of spacetime aren't exactly prevalent in everyday life, are they? But, if you persevere with some of the more exotic concepts in this programme, you'll find that it will give you an insight into the research that drives the world of physics today. And if you're studying physics, well, it's great entertainment as well as you'll be likely able to follow this and appreciate it even more!

When you think of brilliant Australian comedy you don't think of Skit shows (Although I'm quite partial to a bit of 80's and 90's Full Frontal) or even Sitcoms - you think of SATIRE! Something that we Australians really know how to do well. (Eg: Front Line, The Micallef Program) We know how to take the pi$$, and The Chaser's War on Everything, is a classic example of how to do it, and how to do it really well. <br /><br />I've been a huge fan of Chris Taylor and Craig Reucassel for a long time. I remember listening to them on Triple J's afternoon show. They were, and remain, two of the funniest comedians around.<br /><br />Although I was sad when they left Triple J, I was excited to find out what they were investing so much time in that made them have to leave. (They were doing CNNNN and Triple J at the same time, so I figured this was something much bigger) And what an amazingly HILARIOUS show Chaser is. Biting political and social satire at it's best.<br /><br />I'm also pleased to say that it has recently received a MUCH better time slot than Friday nights and has been moved to Wednesday nights right after Spicks and Specks. THANK YOU ABC!! Finally I don't have to tape it! :)

In this TV special Jon is the one who needs a life. The highlight of his day is counting the tiles on the ceiling and rearranging his sock drawer. Not content with this forever, Jon takes Garfield to a self help group in order to meet people. How many people will be interested in a loner 20-something who's best friend is a cat?<br /><br />After several failed attempts at getting a girl, including one cringeworthy dance scene that rivals David Brents' fusion of Flashdance and MC Hammer in The Office (Disco's dead?, says Jon), he is more than shocked to find a cute girl who is as much as a jerk as himself. <br /><br />Naturally, they get on but Garfield is worried that John will forget about him and prefer having kids to a cat. Fortunately Jon's new girlfriend is allergic to cats. <br /><br />With slicker animation than past TV specials, this feels like a longer episode of Garfield and Friends.

After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the 'Universal Soldier' franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend 'Goldberg' playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.<br /><br />We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo! <br /><br />Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel. <br /><br />From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off 'Class of 1999' is more entertaining than this!

Picture Bride has an excellent look into Hawaii's past and the people who lived there in that time. The time, money earned and the hours that these people had put into their lives to survive and live, takes a whole new meaning to blood, sweat and tears.<br /><br />The concept of dating/matchmaking is something like what we do similar today via the net. Just that is more of snail mail. Very slow snail mail.<br /><br />The singing of the plantation's songs from the workers reminds me of the southern plantation workers' songs of their demise and future goals.<br /><br />The movie shows the hardship as well as soft romantic scenes that Hawaii can bring. Like the stillness of a storm coming and the sudden chaos of the rain and then the tranquility.

Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman play Adele and Ann August, a single mother who's the working definition of the word 'dreamer' and her solemn, pragmatic daughter. Adele, wanting to make a fresh start in a big city, moves them from Wisconsin to California.<br /><br />Decent, if not exceptional or particularly memorable, with some serious and sad moments. It pushes some emotional buttons, that's for sure. Best thing it offers is a solid cast, and Sarandon and Portman are quite good in the leads - even if their characters are one-dimensional at times.<br /><br />Could be better, could be worse.<br /><br />I gave this one seven out of ten.

I enjoyed it. There you go, I said it again. I even bought this movie on DVD and enjoyed it a couple of more times. Call me old fashioned but I prefer movies like this to garbage like Die Hard 4 which hold up the box office and get critical acclaim just because you have some old guy saving America. Van Damme moves well for a guy of his age(47 I think), delivering kicks that reminds one of Kickboxer. If you like old school action and and explosions, this is the movie to watch. This is one of Van Damme's best works.<br /><br />Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies get released theatrically where I live so I never miss a chance to watch our old school action stars on the big screen.

Brilliant! My wife and I joined the sprawling line to see Holly at the Edinburgh Film Festival. After seeing the film, I can understand why there was such a long line. Holly is a touching story about an impossible connection between two people. She is a young girl, he is a worn out westerner. The film grasped every bone in our body. There aren't any graphic scenes or anything that is hard to watch - its the surrealism of normality that really kicks you in the gut. The film is beautifully shot. Among others, we loved the scene where Patrick teaches Holly to ride a small motorcycle. Thuy Ngoyen's rawness (cant believe this is her first acting job)and Ron Livingston's performance stayed with me for a couple of days. Highly recommended.

This movie must have looked when it was being pitched at development stage and getting a Redgrave and a Jacobi on board must have excited the money men. All I can say is that they clearly did not have anything on that week. Jacobi camps it up in the way that only Jacobi can do and I thought that he seemed to more of the actor that he parodied in his cameo role in Frasier a few years back. Vinnie Jones is not exactly bad, he is just clearly out of his depth as a leading man. He is really quite amiable throughout and if this was a pilot for a TV series, it may have just got picked up. However, the scipt and the camera work were appalling. Quite why this 'jounalist' and a press officer from the Met would ever work together is never explained. It certainly cannot have been because of the sexual chemistry, of which there is none. There is nothing wrong with a ridiculous and far fetched plot that you can pass off as original, but the whole thing is just so contrived that the two stories just do not make sense at all. It was like two stories confusingly edited in to one just to make up two hours. Go watch some paint dry for a couple of hours. You life will be more fulfilled than watching this rubbish

Recap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. 'Do not open'. But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.<br /><br />Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their 'Do not open' message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.<br /><br />The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.<br /><br />3/10

May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.<br /><br />Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need a faithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has something in common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modern western literature.<br /><br />The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things. First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are all these filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.<br /><br />The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it (Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.<br /><br />What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong idea about the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literary conversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, the Roman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.<br /><br />And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting.<br /><br />/hjm

To regard the film as nothing more than a documentary about skateboarding would fail to recognize several important aspects of Dogtown. Peralta (a well- known skateboarding figure himself) has crafted a film that not only deals with the birth of what we know today as skateboarding, but also examines the socio- cultural and economic circumstances in which this sport emerged and gained wide appeal. In addition, his film is rather personal: Peralta's first-hand association with this cultural phenomenon serves as both the informed cinematic investigator and the involved participant-subject. In this role, he is a quintessential 'participant-observer,' while gathering together a wide array of personalities whom were integral to this movement and those who were profoundly affected by the advent of skateboarding as a competitive sport and subculture. The film employs a uniquely stylistic form of film and sound editing, and the narration (by Sean Penn) and interviews adopt a rather genuine, unrehearsed form that is akin with the anarchic, nihilistic spirit of sidewalk surfing. The film exhibits the kinetic appeal of a protracted sporting, music video tempered with an archaeologist's sensitivity to the importance of time, place, and circumstance.

Jesus Christ, what the hell happened here?. This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, how is it possible that they screwed up such a nice idea for a movie. To tell you the truth I was so hyped for this, I though it was like Blair Witch but with actual alien creatures chasing the camera guy. Goddamn it, I have been reduced to fast forwarding this pile of sh*t, and I never do that while seeing movies. The high rating here on IMDb makes me believe that actual aliens are giving 10's for this piece of crap.<br /><br />Invasion is about well, an invasion. The movie starts by saying that everything you're about to see is real, blahblahblah. Then they go and tell me about a special camera system used in cars, as if I need to believe their bullsh*t to enjoy this movie. Next thing you know I'm seeing the most boring car driving ever filmed, in a forest at night mind you. Is this a movie, or a Disney theme park ride? The first 20 minutes is all boring dialog between cops while seeing grass and one straight road with a flashlight. Where the hell were the aliens?! They were sleeping of course! Then we learn that bad acting is not only reduced to high school plays, as the cop behind the camera goes out of his car to look for a missing man who was 'nightfishing' and had stumbled upon a mysterious meteorite. I wonder what happens to him? Out of nowhere, we see the 'nightfishing' guy walking like a zombie. The cop is apparently too dumb to notice that something is wrong with this man. Apparently he was indeed dumb, as the zombie/alien guy injects in the cop's ear some sort of alien parasite, thus changing him into an alien. Then the cop/alien goes back into his car, looks for a young couple that were having sex a while back in the forest, gets to them, changes the guy into an alien, and then the girl runs to the cop's car and escapes. If this quick plot introduction didn't get it in your head that this movie was bad, then the following 40 minutes will. Watching this movie is as painful as stabbing yourself repeatedly with a plastic fork. The script, while it may sound interesting on the back of the DVD box, is badly directed and sadly, we are left with another boring straight to DVD atrocity.<br /><br />The only thing that kept me awake were the constant flashing and loud sound effects (lamentably). If seeing the same forest trail for 63 minutes is not enough, we must endure crappy flashing techniques to 'scare' the viewer and constant wailing of a bad actress that gets old and annoying pretty quick.<br /><br />If you feel you must rent this, I say to you, why? There are better SciFi/Horror films out there. Even the dreaded remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers is more entertaining than this. For the love of all things good, don't bother with his crap. My eyes bled, and for the first time, I wanted suicide. A 1/10, avoid this like a disease.

You know, this movie reminded me so much of so many people I know, I think that's the reason why I loved this movie so much. I was just on the floor laughing because this had such a serious and document feel to it, but the dialog is so hilarious, that you can't help but have a good time. Basically the movie is about these crazed dog owners who are competing in a big dog show to see who is the best of the best. Whlie it seems like it should be the dogs who take this competition seriously, it turns out the owners are just as insane. Megan, one of the dog owners, goes almost serial psycho killer on the hotel manager because she cannot find the special bee squeaky toy for her dog.<br /><br />There is another couple that is just great, Gerry and Cookie, this complete nerd and attractive woman that are just so lovable. In the beginning of the movie, Gerry describes how many boyfriends Cookie had. Throughout the movie, her 'lovers' see her and hit on her even in front of Gerry! It was just great and fun to watch Gerry's looks. This whole movie is just a hoot, and you can't stop with the recognizable faces that keep popping up. It's a great movie is just fun to watch, I'd highly recommend it! Now, I have to find a nice way of showing this to my friends who are like these couples to see the mirror image of themselves. :D <br /><br />8/10

A young solicitor from London, Arthur Kidd is sent to a small coastal town of Crythin Gifford to oversee the estate of a recently passed away widow Mrs Drablow. While attending her funeral, a mysterious lady dressed in black catches his attention. Supposedly Drablow lived a reclusive life, and locals kept pretty quiet about her. After this he heads to Mrs Drablow mansion that can only be reached on a causeway through the swamp during low tide. There he encounters the woman in black again in cemetery out back of the house, and things begin to get creepy as terrifying noises start coming from the marshes. Now can Mrs Drablow's belongings and listening to her recorded dairy entries help Kidd figure out this gloomy mystery that the locals fear to talk about.<br /><br />Often highly regarded amongst horror fans as being one of the most chilling ghost stories ever and I can see their point. But only in doses does it draw upon tag. Yes, from what you can gather I was left a 'little' under-whelmed, despite really liking it. I was expecting goose bumps throughout the whole feature, but that's probably it… expecting. Mainly I had a similar reaction with the 1980 haunted house thriller 'The Changeling'. When you hear so many good things, it's sometimes hard not get caught up with it.<br /><br />Anyhow what the British TV presentation of 'The Woman in Black' effectively does is bring out a truly old-fashion, slow burn spine-tingling premise driven by its moody locations, disquieting atmosphere and first-rate performances. Subtly blankets the psychologically gripping story (adapted off Susan Hill's novel of the same name), as the simple mystery authentically opens up with a depressingly tragic tone and successfully characterises its protagonist. Little seems to happen, and can feel drawn out, but the fragile randomness of it catch you off guard. Whenever the camera focuses on the lady in black. Who mostly appears as a background figure, it's ultimately creepy. She might not appear all that much, but when she does…. Talk about unnerving! That also goes for that downbeat conclusion. Pauline Moran, who plays the woman in black, competently gets us nervous by just her gaunt appearance and sudden positioning. A pale look and those minor mannerisms just seem to haunt you. She's a spirit you don't want to cross paths with, yet alone let her see you. An accomplished performance by a marvelously moody Adrian Rawlins as the solicitor Arthur Kidd does hold it all together. In support are solid turns by Bernard Hepton, David Daker, Clare Holman and David Ryall.<br /><br />Drawing heavy on its lushly sombre rural town and foggy coastal locations adds more to the realistically eerie plight and the centre piece were everything unfolds in the forlorn, time-worn Victorian house that comprehensively suffocates the air with constant fear. Director Herbert Wise carefully fabricates alarming imagery that slowly covers one secretive piece at a time in a smoothly paved out rhythm of well-judged contriving. Instead of going out to shock us, some scenes contain a distressing intensity that won't let go. The sound effects are masterfully used, by surrounding and disorienting the air. Rachel Portman's harrowing musical score knows how to get under your skin during those eerie moments and then stay with you.<br /><br />This rarity made-for-television feat is a stimulating rich and unsettling supernatural spook-fest. It might not share much new to the sub-genre, but it competently sticks to it strengths to deliver what counts in this curse.

I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree.

This review took longer to write than I took to watch this film. It's just plain bad. The plot is terrible in comparison to the TV shows. It is flat, unfunny and boring.<br /><br />It is clear that the LoG ran out of ideas long before this film was green lit. Viewers should read this as an example of not knowing when to stop.<br /><br />Bad editing, bad music, bad acting. Zero dynamism, zilch chemistry.<br /><br />A film that doesn't know what it is, made without any love to some mysterious end that leaves you depressed and feeling kind of angry that so much money was wasted.<br /><br />The LoG obviously were made an offer they couldn't refuse, or perhaps their egos have simply got the better of them. It's a bleak marketing push that perhaps would have been better when the LoG were fresher and more inspired.<br /><br />I however, did know when to stop, and did.<br /><br />Please! Someone try to convince me of this film's finer points!

Tony Scott can make good films and bad, personally I think he can be a bit flashy and trashy and his work obviously suffers in comparison with that of his rather famous brother, but this is quite possibly his best film.<br /><br />What makes this film so great is that Scott gives Denzel (on scorching form, better than Training Day) and the revelation who is Dakota Fanning time to develop a relationship of real warmth and tenderness. The set up is absolutely NOT boring, although it takes time - it is involving, and takes us on a little journey into the characters - including a superb role for Radha Mitchell as the mother. This all serves to make the action so much more effective, as we are so invested in the characters, for all their all too obvious weaknesses. This film has you on the edge for its entirety, and doesn't cop out at the end either.<br /><br />The film would of course be nothing without Washington. I often wonder why he seems to get so many duff roles, when he quite clearly is as good as almost any leading man out there (I can only really think of one, Daniel Day Lewis, who has more on-screen power these days). This film should have been huge, given his status and the strength of his performance, and the quality of the film. It just goes to show you that if a studio doesn't back a film to the hilt, it ends up going straight to video. I wish I'd got the chance to see this on the big screen.

Marilyn Miller made only three films before her untimely death - the marvelous SALLY (1929), the comedy HER MAJESTY LOVE (1931) and this trifle - SUNNY (1930). It is quite poor both as an early talkie and as an attempt at a musical - although she has four dance numbers, she only sings two songs (WHO? and ONE MAN ALONE). The rest of the score including the spritely title tune are jettisoned, although we can hear the latter in the background scoring. Miller looks overweight and amateurish here - no star quality at all. Even her dancing is cloutish. The film is very badly written, stock full of stale and unfunny jokes and stupid situations. If you're interested in Miller as a performer, by all means, check it out, but for general entertainment, stay away.

For us, an Abbott and Costello movie is something you have to be in the mood for. I'm very happy I recorded this -- my wife remembered it from when she was young, but I had never seen it. The family wanted to watch something not too serious before bed and this was selected.<br /><br />Our daughter has watched many of the old movies with us -- always complaining in the beginning, but most often coming around. She mostly ignored this in the beginning, preferring to check her email, but she started enjoying herself -- many times laughing out loud to the zaniness.<br /><br />It's wonderful to think you can have a fun evening with a 55yr old. The mono-colour introduction that blends into the full-colour fairy tale. It's a fun twist of a story that everyone is familiar with, that includes a little song and a little dance, along with everything you expect Lou and Bud to delivery.<br /><br />Watch it with your children and have a very fun evening!

This movie was rented for free, I had no misconception about this being a very bad movie. I rented it for Thanksgiving because we eat turkey and then the family watches an awful movie. So you ask, what makes this movie so bad you gave it only 2 stars? Dialog. The lack of dialog makes this a movie perfect for a deaf audience. In fact if you rent this, just turn the volume down to zero and pop in any heavy metal CD from your favorite artist. I know you will enjoy it better. The plot of this holiday turkey was so encumbered with tech and geek speak you need a translator for the narrative. Now for all you people who enjoy good sci-fi effects... eh, they are not much better than video game trailers or cut scenes in cases worse. The actors, um both of them, are not much to look at either. They say nothing much through out the entire movie. Many of the technical aspects will make you laugh like the scene where the hero straps herself to a missile and fires it at the city 70km away (it never showed how she landed). The scene before that we see a robotic sentry fire at her with a cannon from 12 feet away and he misses multiple shots. Also we are told that the political division between the antagonist and protagonist is bio-tech (genetically enhanced humans) vs cyber-tech (machine enhanced humans) but both seem to be cyborgs or enhanced humans. What told me this was a bad movie at the rental store was the cover that looked like a video game cover art and there was only the one copy, good new releases have many copies available.

Terrfic film with a slightyly slow start - give it a chance to start cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and storyline subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of 'Sex in the City' - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).

Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.<br /><br />Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.<br /><br />The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.<br /><br />All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo.

As much as I love Rodney Dangerfield, this was a terrible movie. The plot was kind of a holistic rip off of various movies, but unfortunately they forgot to rip off any good jokes. In addition it was annoying and boring and that's being kind. If you're looking for a good laugh, rent a copy of Private Parts.

Just as Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is about to get a break in his professional life his frustrated wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) finally gets up the courage to leave him, leaving Ted to care for their five year old son (Justin Henry). Being a single parent proves to be quite the chore for Ted, and he suffers professionally but also learns there's much more to life than a career as he continues to bond with, and really get to know, his own son. But then Joanna returns and intends to get her son back, which leads to a cruel custody trial.<br /><br />Kramer vs. Kramer is a superbly well written and magnificently acted human drama that will only leave the most cold-hearted a viewer untouched. Hoffman's growing relationship with his son is so well portrayed and the film never takes an easy way out. It always feels very real and thanks to the film's low-key approach it makes even more of an impact and can easily work upon multiple viewings, the film's dramatic impact does not lessen.<br /><br />Easily recommended; 10 out of 10.

The Derek's have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title 'worst movie of all time', and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. In fact, this film can be regarded as belonging to the 'so bad, it's good' category, right up there with the products of the likes of Edward Wood Jr. or Doris Wishman. This explains the IMDb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks.<br /><br />Anthony Quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time, but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad, it has to be seen to be believed.

Truly bad and easily the worst episode I have ever seen....ever.<br /><br />They tried to make up for it by giving it the, 'we know we are doing this' routine. That would have been funny if it weren't for the fact that 'The Simpsons' had already done it. And it still wouldn't make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place.<br /><br />The flashbacks took place as part of the usual character's (mainly J.D's) fantasies. The flashbacks weren't even of actual events that occurred, just compilations of say, J.D falling over or, i don't know.... Elliott falling over. If I wanted to watch a Scrubs compilation i'd go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life.<br /><br />Scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit-coms have to, and it disappoints me, they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this. <br /><br />I was hoping that scrubs wouldn't have to be that kind of sit-com.<br /><br />And just as a passing thought, why the hell was Dr.Cox bald?

There are just so many things wrong with this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to 'The Wiz' on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.<br /><br />Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.<br /><br />Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the 'new Ursula'?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.<br /><br />Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.<br /><br />All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.<br /><br />Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad.

Justine cannot find the perfect mate to make her first time the perfect one. With geek friend in tow, she enters a virtual machine to improve her appearance. When she sees the opportunity to create her perfect man, an explosion occurs and the results are left to your imagination. Problem is, how many obvious sex jokes are left anymore? How predictable can these kind of movies get? A few funny moments here and there, but nothing too outrageous or different from jokes in other movies or even normal life. If you liked WEIRD SCIENCE or jokes about the 'fish out of water' combined with 'gender identity crisis', then by all means these 90 min, you could enjoy.

Tarantino once remarked on a melodrama from the 1930s called Backstreet that 'tragedy is like another character' in the film. The same could be said- and not withstanding bringing up Tarantino- for Sidney Lumet's best work in years, a melodrama where character is of the utmost concern not simply because of what's at stake with the cast involved. Kelly Masterson doesn't have a masterpiece of a script here (it basically breaks into crazy killer mode by the end in a series of climactic events that only work by the very end, and even there suspension of disbelief is paramount), but her script does convey character before plot, and in a story where the actions surround a heist it's crucial to know who these people are beat by beat. It's bleak as hell, unforgiving as Satan, but also absolutely riveting 90% of the time.<br /><br />Chalk it up not just because Lumet knows how to handle a non-linear script where we see the day-to-day actions of character to character before during, and mostly after the botched 'mom-&-pop' jewelry store robbery occurs, but because of the formidable cast assembled (which, I might add, is Lumet's specialty). Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke are brothers with their own respective financial f***-ups, and the former approaches the latter on what looks like a fool-proof heist: looting their own mother and father's jewelry store in Westchester. Hawke's Hank involves another shady character though, murders occur, and suddenly it's tragedy on a Greek scale affecting the brothers and their father, played by a perfect Albert Finney. It's the kind of material that most actors love- characters who, like in Dog Day Afternoon, are painfully human, flawed to the bone but only wanting love &/or things to be set right, and have the complete inability to fulfill their wants and needs.<br /><br />In this case though Hoffman and Hawke are matched splendidly; Hoffman has, until the aforementioned last ten minutes, a super-calm and occasionally joking demeanor that reveals him as the brains of the operation, but then smaller scenes where he breaks down emotionally (i.e. with Finney or the car scene with Tomei) push his talents to the limit; Hawke, meanwhile, is called a loser by his ex-wife and daughter, can't pay any debts at all, and is called a baby by his own father, and he fills the bill of the part in all the ways that matter- he's not quite as flawed as his older brother, but who wants to pick a straw for that title? And Finney, as mentioned, is spot-on all the way through, making his turn in Big Fish look like child's play (the final scenes with him are terrifyingly tragic, his face recoiling in a horror that has built up all through the second half).<br /><br />Also featuring supporting turns from a finely ditsy and perversely two-timing Marisa Tomei, Bug's Michael Shannon as bad-ass white trash, and Amy Ryan, Brian F. O'Byrne and Rosemary Harris making brief, exact impressions, this is a film with a tremendous lot of skill and heart- but not a forgiving heart- with a story that doubles back on details not for showy plot devices but to make clear every step of a family's perpetual downward spiral. If it's not as mind-blowing as Serpico or Network or the Pawnbroker or 12 Angry Men it comes as close as anything Lumet's done since.

I was blubbing like an idiot during the last ten minutes of this exceptional piece of television. I have to say that the idea of sitting down to view 90 minutes of what was bound to be pretty depressing material on a Sunday, was not a welcome one. The thought of yet another, over worthy, BAFTA winning possibility did not enthuse me......However the end result knocked me for 6. This is some of the best television I have seen in ages. For years I was under the impression that all originality had left the BBC's drama department. Our Friends in the North was the last production that truly blew me away and that was 10 years ago. However faith is restored and honour is satisfied. David Tenant was incredible! So many actors I can think of would have really gone to town on a part like this, but never once did I see Mr Tenant as an actor or as the Doctor, all I saw was Alan Hamilton. I haven't had my heart wrenched this much since Daniel Craigs performance as Geordie Peacock all those years ago. Sarah Parish was also incredible and I really hope this role brings her better roles in the future. All of the cast were great but special mention must go to the director who really placed us inside Alans head. The toaster scene, in particular, made me feel quite queasy.

This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen. Pure drivel. How anyone could develop a connection with the heroine, or have empathy for her, is beyond me. I felt I was watching a case history of a schizoid individual with borderline personality disorder. Just terrible.<br /><br />In its most generous light, this can be seen as an attempt at producing and 'art' film - except I could not, for the life of me, find any art in it at all.<br /><br />If this woman had lived in todays' world, she would have been whisked off to a mental institution and given a couple of days treatment with anti-psychotic medications. That, or simply allowed to roam the streets and become a bag woman. Why other characters in this movie found anything redeeming in her - and tried to aid her in her quest to become an actress - speaks more to their pathology than any convincing characteristics she had that made her worth that effort.

It was a fascinating story waiting to be told. FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes us inside the trials and tribulations of a group of top American scientists handed a lofty task during the Second World War: beat everyone else to the atomic bomb. Sequestered in a heavily-guarded New Mexico compound, the brainiacs slowly turn the idea from ambitious concept into immense reality.<br /><br />FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is one of those films that requires your close attention. It's a real thinking person's movie, not only from the scientific aspect of developing a seemingly impossible weapon, but also the moral implications of contributing to killing on a massive scale. Characters are constantly torn between that reality and their wartime duty as Americans. The film is never preachy about, however, leaving us free to marvel at the enormity of the inner turmoil these men face. The performances deserve special mention as well. Paul Newman delivers one of his great, understated performances as the Pattonesque general in charge of delivering the ultimate big stick for the Allied Forces.<br /><br />Where FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY loses much of its traction is in the unnecessary romantic component. Dwight Schultz as the leader of the scientific team struggles with his affections for his family and his relentless obsession with his big project. Director Roland Joffe apparently felt the need to explore the more human angles of this story, but the romantic overtones serve primarily as a distraction. Besides, it's the interaction among the scientists and their military hierarchy that give us the greatest insight into the thoughts and feelings of these brilliant men.<br /><br />Still, it's difficult not to recommend FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY. It's a largely forgotten gem that puts a human face put on one of the most intriguing stories in human history.

1st watched 8/31/1996 - (Dir-Tim Robbins): Very thought provoking and very well done movie on the subject of the death penalty. Deserved more recognition and publicity than it received.

John Ford paid the wagons his tribute of a special picture, 'Wagon Master' made after two big Indian-cavalry epics... It is a lovely poetic movie, full of romanticized reincarnation of the pioneer spirit... It didn't have to top the big ones that had preceded it...<br /><br />Photographically, it is extremely simple... The camera moves only once or twice in the entire film, and never when a director would have made it move to underline a shot... Ford even resists the temptation to track his camera in the breathtaking twilight shots of the women wearily marching along in the dust behind their wagons... They come-and go-while the camera remains immobile and the audience stays a spectator to the march of history, not a participant in it... Of course, when Ford wants to involve his audience emotionally or dramatically, as in 'Stagecoach,' he knows just how to do it... But 'Wagon Master' is a tender, nostalgic look backward...<br /><br />Filled with traditional Western songs rendered by The Sons of the Pioneers, it tells of the trek West to Utah (in 1879) of a Mormon wagon train led by Ward Bond in the role of Elder Wiggs, and two young horse traders (Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr). And in a series of beautiful images, as the wagon train fights outlaws, Indians and nature in its struggle to reach the 'promised land,' the modest 'Wagon Master' manages to capture the history and legend of the West... <br /><br />Ford himself has said that 'Wagon Master' (of which he wrote the original story) was among the three films of his which 'came closest to being what I had wanted to achieve.'<br /><br />Ford's career as a Western director was astonishing... More than anyone else he was able to use the genre to protect his feelings about the family, society, and the American way of life... Ford saw the frontier as a land to be subdued by a special class of settlers and lawmen whose great sacrifices make the land safe from those who come after... These early westerners were giants who deserved the legendary status they earned, and the civilized townsfolk who followed must always hold them in fear and respect... Ford's Westerns often employ flashbacks that emphasize the historical authenticity of his approach...<br /><br />In 'Wagon Master,' for example, folk songs on the sound track tell us of the hardships of the pioneers of a century ago, and Ford shows them to us in almost documentary fashion... In one sequence the train is camped in a circle and the settlers decide to hold a square dance... To fashion a dance floor they have to lay boards over the desert sand, and with this ritual celebration Ford shows the defeat of the wilderness through the metaphor of boarding over the land...<br /><br />It's a lovely-to-look-at film, full of a marvelous lighthearted optimism, and it is easy to understand why Ford found it so satisfying… It never breaks faith with the mood and style set in the first few sequences… But one is left wondering whether the ultra-romantic best suits the chosen theme…<br /><br />The wagon-train experience must have been one of the most physically demanding and nerve-wracking ordeals that man (with his womankind) ever set himself… It must have been riddled with doubts—was I wrong to sell up everything and come? How can we hope to survive? How will we contend the other end?—almost every other aching step of the way…<br /><br />Yet none of this feeling really comes through in 'Wagon Master.' The journey—such is the general ebullience—does not strike one as particularly hazardous… It could be, of course, that the Mormons were so 'high' on religious spirit that this tended to act as an anesthetic… In other words their reactions weren't those of normal human weakness... If so, Ford was right and the doubters were wrong…<br /><br />What is beyond doubt is the right and proper ebullience, especially at first meeting, of Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. This is the essence of light-hearted adventurous youth, particularly one feels of Western youth of those extraordinary times… It's a remarkable relationship and it remains lodged in the mind…

Where do I start. Do I say how great the cinematography is. Do I praise certain scenes which show the directors creativity. Do I tell how realistic the scenes on Ellis Island are. Should I mention that for a change we do not have the cliché scene of viewing Statue Of Liberty. (By now immigrants viewing the statue from the ships railing is a cliché)<br /><br />Now whats not likable, two major things, one being a modern song score & not even a good one to boot.<br /><br />Second & nearly deadly the film is boring it moves so slow, that watching paint dry would be an improvement.<br /><br />The 118 minute running time is to long & yet the film seems unfinished. We see no scenes of this family in the US. Our hero mentions he wants to find his twin brother, I would have enjoyed scenes of his futile of maybe lucky search, instead of other drawn out scenes.<br /><br />The film is a near miss.<br /><br />Ratings *** (out of 4) 81 points (out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)

Christopher Durang must have been taught by a memorably awful nun, because he just can't let go of the concept. The play, 'Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You,' was presented -- at least in Hollywood -- in precisely the same tone as Diane Keaton's lecture scenes here. Sister Mary was an exaggeration, a lampoon, a bitter satire of a serenely confident, doctrinaire and highly judgmental nun -- and as played by Lynn Redgrave, she was hilarious. But the movie insists that we take this exaggeration absolutely seriously -- while, as mentioned, maintaining the same tone in the 'explains it all' scenes. The two approaches clash headlong and in the last twenty minutes, the movie goes off the track, plunges into the gorge, and explodes. There are no survivors. It could have worked, if the tone of the scenes with the four former students, and their encounter with Sister Mary, been pitched the same as the Sister Mary scenes. Or if the Sister Mary scenes been presented more realistically. This way simply doesn't work at all.

Some of my favorite Laurel and Hardy films have very, very little plot. Instead, they give them a rather mundane situation and just let them be hilarious! Films such as HELP MATES and BUSY BODIES are among the funniest as you see the boys working or cleaning house. Here in DIRTY WORK, most of the film is akin to these other two films--Stan and Ollie are chimney sweeps and spend most of the film trying (quite unsuccessfully) to clean a crazy professor's chimney. Seeing Ollie fall through the chimney, the boys making the house a total mess and the insane behaviors of Stanley all work together to make a very pleasing film.<br /><br />However, in an odd twist, there is also a really weird subplot that begins and ends the movie. It seems that the professor is truly a mad scientist and he is working on a formula to make things younger. Late in the film, you see him make a duck into a duckling and even a duckling into an egg! Given that he then leaves the boys alone in the room, is it any surprise what happens next? While this subplot was unnecessary, it worked well enough. What worked exceptionally well was the middle portion. Give the boys nothing exciting to do and you'll be amazed at the hilarious results. One of the team's better films and it almost earns a 9.

First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.

Aileen Gonsalves, my girlfriend, is in this film playing a secretary at the main character's bank. She has a lovely scene with Roshan Seth in a restaurant. There's more information on her website at >Having stated my personal interest in the film, I have to say that I think it is a beautiful movie - moving, funny and beautifully filmed.

I recently purchassed the very underrated Dreamcast and went off into town to find some games to use them on. I bought Soul Calibur (A classic) and then i stepped across the domain of Resident Evil Code Veronica. I have Resident Evil 1 & 2, and have played Res Evil 3 numerous occasions, and i have been impressed with all of them, especially no.1 which has to go down in history has a classic.<br /><br />But none of them 3 come anywhere near to the dreamcast attempt of Brilliant Gory Gameplay. If its just for the sake of buying a dreamcast for this game it is worth every moment of your time and effort, ive never been so enthralled over a computer game in the way this has enthralled me.<br /><br />Anyway, the story carrys on from the 2nd story in which Claire Redfield searches for her Brother (Chris - from the 1st story), who is presumed missing under the conspiracy of the dreaded umbrella corporation. Little is known about this corporation except the fact that you though you destroyed them 3 times in the previous storys.<br /><br />So aiding Claire, with the assistant of super brat Steve, u must unlock the truth of the real location of your brother. The 2nd CD enables you to control Chris, thats if you manage to get that far without running out of the room in fear.<br /><br />The control are very slick and the movement of the characters are magnificently realistic, when the character notices danger, he/she faces the direction it is coming from. PURE GENIUS!!<br /><br />Overall i gave this game 10/10 because it is simply the game of the year, game of the decade and the best game in the world full stop!!. Please purchase this game as soon as possible.

I can't believe currently this movie is rated a 6.9. Anyway this movie was probably one of the most touching real Indian movies I have ever seen. It was really refreshing to see a movie that showed traditional family cinema. As for the story I thought it was great it was about shahid kapur being set up on an arranged marriage with amrita rao. He is kind of a happy go lucky kind of guy, while Amrita Rao is a traditional Indian girl who is very helpful to her uncle but the only problem is her cousin doesn't seem to get as much attention as she does so her Aunt dislikes Amrita with a passion. This upsets Amrita because she just wants her aunt to love her. It was also very touching to see that although Amrita's family wasn't that rich maybe just middle class to lower class, while Shahids family was quite upper class, they still treated their family with respect and didn't even ask put them down which really struck a nerve with me. This is because i've actually seen people being very rude to people who are not as well of thinking their below their standards which i feel is very shallow. This movie showed that shahids family was willing to look at the great values that Amrita had been brought up with and turned a blind eye to the fact she wasn't a rich business tycoons daughter or anything. All in all this movie deserved an 8/10 I wish more and more of these kind of movies were made.

Some might remember if having seen the film Juno a scene where Ellen Page has a moment of praise for Dario Argento's Suspiria, her favorite horror film. Jason Bateman's character then asks if she's ever seen a Herschel Gordon Lewis film, and to wit he has a copy of a movie (I forget which at the moment) and shows it to her. At the time I saw Juno I had seen Suspiria and a few Argento films but not Lewis. Now I can see that it's not just another one of Diablo Cody's pop-culture 'in' references, but something that actually is an indicator on the tastes of the characters and, maybe more subjectively, how to judge them based on their tastes. In other words, Herschel Gordon Lewis's reputation is maintained some many years after he ended making his gore films - and it's that of a schlock-Meister, no more no less. Actually, less.<br /><br />It's interesting then to take Argento as a basis of comparison, because both filmmakers approach, at least in the case of The Gore Gore Girls and, well, any given Argento picture, similar material. Where Argento is extraordinarily conscious about his craft, getting an audience wrapped up in whatever little story there is by the power of the movement of camera and music and style, Lewis takes the easy route to get at an audience, which is with an immature script and (putting it lightly) lackluster direction. The Gore Gore Girls reveals a filmmaker who isn't interested in entertaining his audience in an actual compelling way as a horror film, but as a side-show or a brothel. He can't direct actors worth a damn, he lights like it's a porno movie, and for every one possibly clever or funny one-liner there's ten that either totally stink or are too clever by half or not clever nearly enough.<br /><br />That being said, perhaps as the best substantive thing to say about The Gore Gore Girls, a mystery movie about a detective (2nd rate Sherlock Holmes guy played by somewhat amusing Frank Kress) and a newspaper reporter (dummie Amy Farrell) investigating a series of murders of go-go dancers, is that it serves as the template for countless more Troma-style pictures. Perhaps this is faint praise, however, and really the best thing that can truly be said is that Henny Youngman- 'Take my wife, please!'- has a few scenes and steals every one of them without having to try much. It's sad, since it could be the kind of picture that could entertain on an awesomely-bad level. But even on that score one may laugh more out of embarrassment for the production, some of the actors (i.e. that guy who plays the cop, my God) than out of some guilty pleasure enjoyment.<br /><br />Even the gore itself is somewhat of a letdown. At first one thinks that Lewis is at least delivering on this end, showing these women being murdered in crazy and vicious and exaggerated ways. But with the killings it all goes on longer than necessary; I don't mean this in terms of shock value, for that it's fine. But there needs to be something else to really make it 'stick', that showing women's faces dissected and eyes gouged is fine if you're 12 and seeing this as one of you're first 'horror' films. It becomes, dare I say it, dull. Dangerously dull for such a 'daring' so-called movie.<br /><br />This was Lewis's last film until 30 years later an apparently worthy swan song came with a sequel to a film he made earlier brought him out of his retirement from movies and job in writing books on how to make it in business. However, whatever experience he had coming up to this one doesn't show. It's not a failure, but it could have been, and it's just simply... schlock. Take it or leave it.

Other reviewers here seem to think this is an awful film. That's simply not true and a little unfair.<br /><br />The acting is of a good quality and the direction moves on with a decent fluidity. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Tarantino-esquire way of interlocking stories together. Perhaps its just a new tool for directors to try. I thought it made the film much more interesting. Perhaps a few elements of the script need tightening, but that's about the only fault I can find. Nestor Cantillana gives a great performance as Sylvio, also Antonella Rios is stunning and worth the price of admission alone.

Everybody I talked to said that this movie would be good and really weird so I figured that I would rent it. Half way through the movie I was thinking to myself what the heck was going on and what is the point to this movie. This movie from start to finish is so bad that even the sick parts of the movie didn't even bother me. I mean what are they going to come up with next Volcano 2 The return of the lava. I mean come on this movie is so stupid the characters are so poorly developed,and eve Robert Englund makes the movie worse I mean he might as well be transformed into Freddy Kruegur and Spook people. I was actually rooting for the bad guy to win that's how bad it was. I mean look the father is a cop he didn't seem to care real much about the fact that his daughter is going through one of the most moments in her life. I mean if my daughter was treated like that I would do everything in my power to keep the guy behind jail. Also it seems kind of obvious that Dee Snyders character would turn bad again. This is one of the worst films of all time right there with Volcano and 8mm. Do not waist your time you will not enjoy it....!<br /><br />Grade If there were a no grade on this site I would pick that ,thats how bad this movie is!

Peter Lorre was born to play Stephen Danel with lines like: 'Mr. Smith, you shouldn't hold my wife like that.' and 'I told you not to keep the monkey in the house!' The poster for this film is an eerie green and Peter Lorre leers in way that makes you never want to go to his penal colony / island. This film is not available on DVD although it is a classic and very rarely shown on TV. What exactly is the relationship between Stephen Danel and the monkey? Why does the monkey upset him so much. We will never know. The film should be colorized by someone and excerpts should be made into a Kinks video. The film was re-released in the 1950s and only a few of the Peter Lorre biographies spend any text on this film. Casablanca was right around the corner. Bogart could have been on that island but they surely did not have the budget for him

Shinjuku Triad Society: Chinese Mafia Wars is unlikely to get distribution in the West outside film festivals. Why? Could your censors stomach a film where policemen anally rape male and female suspects to get them to talk (and the victims enjoy it) or see an old lady have her eye torn out of her skull? These are just a few of the shocks in store for viewers of this ultraviolent cops and gangsters story. It makes Clockwork Orange which was banned for years in the UK look like a Disney cartoon.<br /><br />Should you see this film? YES It is fantastic and essential viewing for fans of Asian cinema. The shocking moments are there to illustrate what goers on in the world of these characters. If you like this make sure you catch Dead or Alive which is very similar (barring the insane ending in DOA of course). Great for Japan that they have a talent like Miike working at the same time as Takeshi Kitano. The best chance of seeing this film outside a Takashi Miike retrospective at a film festival is on DVD. If I haven't put you off try hunting for a Hong Kong version on the web as I'm sure it will come out in that country.

How many more of those fake 'slice of life' movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.<br /><br />Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly 'edgy' Hollywood independent production.<br /><br />It's supposed to be 'real' so left shake the camera 'documentary style', except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...<br /><br />It's 'edgy' so let's not waste any time lighting the film.<br /><br />It's 'hip', so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...<br /><br />And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the 'rarefied' indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.

'Imperium Nero' is the second movie of the series of six productions named 'Imperium'. I have already unfavorably commented the first one: 'Imperium Augustus'. This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: 'Nero, Nero'. At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. 'Imperium' series will continue with four more movies : 'Titus', 'Marcus Aurelius','Costantinus' and'The Fall of the Roman Empire'. Finally!

Where to even start? The horrendous acting? The nonsensical plot? The bargain basement effects? The completely loathsome characters? The choppy editing? The headache-inducing Casio keyboard score??? The embarrassingly racist remarks ('Watch it, Charlie!', 'Back off, Jackie Chan!!'??? The constant misogyny??? I am a lifelong horror fan, and I have no problem at all with the current 'torture-thon' trend of movies. However, this is a poorly-made piece of garbage. I think I suffered more pain watching this than the characters did dying in it! If you like girls being forced to eat stir-fried penis, really poor soft core porn and think lines like 'I'm gonna find that b**** and staple her c*** shut!!' are clever, LIVE FEED is for you.<br /><br />As for me, I feel the need to go wash my eyes out with oven cleaner to prevent from ever seeing this movie again!

*I mark where there are spoilers! Overall comments: If you can take a serious movie, go see this. Have an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't leave the theater because you get confused as to what is going on! The movie fits together nicely in the second half. I will be taking my mom to see it again when the movie officially opens. <br /><br />I was lucky to see this at a screening a couple of weeks ago, when Will was going around promoting the movie. He was great--spent a lot of time with the fans. Thank you for the picture Will! About Will's performance: A lot of times when you see a movie with an actor really famous for some other movie/show, you always think of them in their current performance much like you think of them for their past performance. This is not the case with Will Smith in this movie. I didn't picture the Fresh Prince (lol) when I was watching this movie. He was completely and utterly convincing in this very, very serious role. He has grown immensely as an actor. I think he will at least get an Oscar nod for this performance.<br /><br />About his character: Ben is very conflicted and tormented. He's sad...guilt-ridden...very determined, but very scared. Very true to himself. His character has a lot of depth...and somehow, Will managed to bring that to life.<br /><br />About Emily (Rosario): Rosario did a nice job portraying Emily, a woman very much behind on her taxes. Maybe she's not the shining star Will is in this movie, but she was very convincing. I think her character just did not have as much to work with as Will's did.<br /><br />About the plot (no spoilers): I admit that I did NOT like the movie until the second half of it. I knew absolutely nothing about the movie going into it, and nothing made sense until the second part of it or so. But when things eventually fit together, wow. Surprisingly well written and well thought out. It's an extremely intense movie that really sticks with you.<br /><br />It actually takes a lot out of you to watch. In the theater I was in, most people were crying towards the end--even grown men. When you realize what Ben is doing, and why, it's a very powerful moment...<br /><br />******* Minor SPOILERS***** Which is why it's really hard to talk about the plot without giving major things away. I feel like knowing too much about this movie really ruins it. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie that I enjoyed, though. I will mention some of it here (without trying to give a lot away).<br /><br />-The fish that Ben was keeping in his hotel room. At first, it makes no sense whatsoever. There was a LOT of chatter in the movie theater when people realized the reality of the fish.<br /><br />-I hated Ben at the beginning of the movie. By the end of it, I loved him and hated him. That's how convincing Will was. I thought Ben was being a huge jerk to Ezra, a blind man just trying to make his way in the world. Why he was treating Ezra like that also became abundantly clear later in the movie. Wait it out though. Everything in this movie: wait it out.<br /><br />-Ben is a fundamentally good person who made a big mistake that he won't forgive himself for. It's still unclear to me if he was doing what he was doing because he was trying to rid himself of his own guilt, or if he genuinely wanted to help people. I think it's a little bit of both...I think he wanted to help people but also rid himself of his past. I love his character. You love him and hate him because you realize that what he is doing is nothing short of amazing. You hate him because of what he is doing to himself (as a very good person), both physically and emotionally. Nice job Will.

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers has got to be the worst television show ever made. There is no plot, just a bunch of silly costumed kids using martial arts while dressed up in second class spandex outfits.<br /><br />The special effects look like they are from the '70's, the costumes look like something out of a bad comedy, and the show is just plain awful.<br /><br />The only thing worse than the television show are the toys, just second rate plastic garbage fed to our kids.<br /><br />There are far better shows for your kids to watch!<br /><br />Try giving your kids something like Nickelodean, those shows actually have some intelligence behind them, unlike power rangers.

This is such a great movie to watch with young children. I'm always looking for an excuse to watch it over & over. Gena was good, Cheech was fun,the Russian was good, Maria was adorable & of course Paulie was the best!

This was the worst movie I've ever seen, yet it was also the best movie. Sci Fi original movie's are supposed to be bad, that's what makes them fun! The line, 'I like my dinosaur meat well done!' is probably the best quote ever! Also, the plot sounds like something out of a pot induced dream. I can imagine it now, the writers waking up after a long night of getting high and playing dance dance revolution, then putting ideas together for this: Space marines got to alien planet, which is infested with dinosaurs and has medieval houses in it, to protect a science team studying the planet. Best idea ever! In fact, in fits the complete Sci Fi original movie checklist: guns dinosaurs medieval times space travel terrible acting<br /><br />So go watch this movie, but don't buy it.

You wouldn't expect a movie like this to be good, and it isn't. It's a no budget, ultra violent zombie movie filmed with a bad looking hand-held camera...and it's hilarious. The actors obviously have never acted before and it shows in their terrible hilarious readings. There is no plot to be seen. The little plot I could find seemed to be that a government experiment escaped and a group of zombie seems to be terrorizing a couple families. The gore effects are actually some of the most sickening I've ever seen. It seems the gore effects people raided a butcher shop for all the body parts, and many scenes involve zombies dismembering people and eating their organs. It's a funny and sickening film, and it's about as bad as you can get in terms of any movie.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 90 mins.

I agree with the Aussie's comments for the most part. However, there id seem to be a fairly decent plot, if unoriginal. Christina (Kelli McCarty) inherits a rural property that she intends to open a mountain lodge. She gets reacquainted with Chip (Bobby Johnston) whom she had known when she was growing up in there. The plot thickens when James (Paul Logan) arrives with his new stripper friend, Shene (Devinn Lane) because Christina had been James' stripper friend in years gone by, and the implication is that James had done her wrong somehow. To add interest to the movie Sophia Linn (Monique Parent) a romance novelist shows up as a guest at the lodge, as do Eric (Sebastien Guy) and Linda (Flower), pair of lawyers from the city. James sicks the local building codes inspector on Christina's business as one of his dirty tricks to shut her down. So the question is, 'How far will James go to sabotage the lodge and will he succeed?'<br /><br />Watch for Devinn Lane here and in 'Beauty Betrayed.' She seems to be making a transition from the hard core business to the 'R' world. Another notable is Samantha McConnell, playing the role of 'Bait,' clearly the most outrageous character name in the movies!

TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, 'no good at what I'm being a success at', and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.<br /><br />Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.<br /><br />This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.<br /><br />This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.<br /><br />The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.<br /><br />Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.<br /><br />Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.<br /><br />Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he 'stinks' or 'doesn't get it', Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.<br /><br />Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.<br /><br />James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star.

I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it.

Having seen and loved Greg Lombardo's most recent film 'Knots' (he co-wrote and directed that feature as well), I decided to check out his earlier work, and this movie was well worth the effort and rental. Macbeth in Manhattan is a tongue in cheek, excellent take on the Shakespeare favorite, updated and moved to NYC. I was impressed by the underlying wit and intelligence of the script and was wowed by the way the storyline of the production in the movie mirrors the storyline of the play itself - and very cleverly at that. The trials and tribulations of life in Manhattan parallel many a Shakespeare play, and Central Park was rarely put to better use than as the woods around Macbeth's castle. Mr. Lombardo obviously has a fond place in his heart for New York and New York stories (Knots is a funny and warm sex comedy about six thirty-something New Yorkers set primarily in a charming Brooklyn neighborhood, with Manhattan offices and a downtown loft thrown in for good measure) and has spent considerable time around the plays of Shakespeare. The movie is well-paced and the story reflects a deep understanding of the essential drama at the core of Macbeth. It reminded me of Al Pacino's 'Looking for Richard' - another wonderful Shakespeare 'play within a movie.' I highly recommend checking out Macbeth in Manhattan.

Robert Montgomery and Robert Young are outstanding as a duo of young submarine officers stationed in Italy during World War I. The dialog is highly entertaining, and Jimmy Durante is hilarious as the ship's cook, 'Ptomaine'. Walter Huston's character is inspiring as the captain of the submarine, a stellar example of an officer and a gentleman. One of the most interesting aspects of this movie was the level of technology displayed in the battle scenes. I was surprised at how similar the technology of World War I was to the technology displayed 25 years later in World War II. Basic human nature was portrayed as very similar to modern times, and far from the conservativism I thought existed in the so-called 'innocent' past. All in all I felt that the cast, characters, action scenes, and view of history depicted in this movie were first-rate.

The Unborn is a pretty good low-budget horror movie exploiting the fears associated with pregnancy. It's very well acted by the always-good Brooke Adams and b-movie stalwart James Karen, although the supporting cast is pretty average for a b-grader. The music, by Gary Numan of all people, is good too. Henry Dominic's script is quite intelligent for this sort of thing, although there is a hint of misogyny about it. Rodman Fender's direction is merely adequate, and there are some unnecessary cheap scares. If you're a fan of Adams, whose movie career is nowhere near as illustrious as it should be, check it out; she's great, as always.

Yes, 2:37 is in some ways a rip off from Gus van Sants Elephant. It's about some students who are dealing with their problems leading to the suicide of one of them. Yes, it's full of clichés, but that's life. You just can't deny that creepy nerds, disabled persons or popular students who, despite their popularity, do have problems are existing in the real world.<br /><br />But that's not, what this film is all about. It's not about life in Highschool. It's not about the misery of life itself.<br /><br />If you look beneath the surface, beneath the soap-like social relationships that are shown, you will find some gripping, thought-provoking criticism of our society.<br /><br />Why are people committing suicide? Do we really understand their motives? Or are we just trying to understand, after its already too late? And why is it always someone, you would never have expected it to be?<br /><br />This movie doesn't answer this question, but it raises it. And it does so in a very intense way. All the way it keeps you guessing, whose blood it might be, that you see at the very beginning. You are following the paths of some students, all of them having a more or less good reason to end their lives, just to be forced to watch the gruesome act in the finale.<br /><br />Did you know who it would be? Or were you caught by surprise, like in real life?<br /><br />The message is verbalized by one of the surviving kids in the end. We are always so fixed on our own problems, we forget to see those of others. There might be someone, a colleague, a friend, who does not want to live anymore. But, if you don't open your eyes, you'll never know until its too late.<br /><br />This movie delivers well. It might have some flaws, but they don't matter anymore, when its over. Either you see a reflection of society, or you are blind for reality.

This film isn't a comedy, its an expose. I've always hated dog shows, considering the ridiculous get-ups people put their dogs in and the idiotic names they give them. Hence, the reason for my uncontrolled cackling while watching this film. I get a kick out of something being taken so seriously, even though the gains are small and insignificant. It's like miniature golf, or jump roping championships or the need to set some obscure world record. The acting was much more refined in this film than Waiting for Guffman, and its mainly due to the more fluidity of the characters, who seem more comfortable with their specific acting partners in this film than the previous. Eugene Levy was great, as was Michael McKean and Fred Willard. However, it was the dogs who eventually stole the show. But then again, who wants to see a bunch of humans in a film about dogs anyway.

WOW I Love this movie. This is definitely added to my list of Ghetto Movies.<br /><br />Juice - Starring Tupac 'I don't giva F***' Menace II Society - O-Dawg 'I'll smoke Anybody, I just don't giva F****' New Jersey Drive - Hey they steal cars in broad daylight they obviously don't giva f***<br /><br />New Jersey Drive is the best hood movie ever. It is at the top of the list, menace II society is second, and juice is third, Clockers is really stupid.<br /><br />The soundtrack for New Jersey Drive is Pwnage too Mac Mall & Young Lay - All about my fetti is heard through out the movie.<br /><br />Lords of the underground - Burn rubber, another good song, and so is Ill & Al Scratch - don't shut down on a player<br /><br />If your a fan of GTA-SA you'll freaking love this movie, AND The amazing soundtrack. The soundtrack is basically Rap about stealing cars ^_^ SWEETTTT Movie!

its a gem movie if anyone who hasn't seen movie sholey he cant understand what is going on there. a thakur call men for catching a big terrorist who is like god and even police don't know abut him but these ppl do.<br /><br />biggest advantage of film is its speed u never know what is going on and the part is completed. actors are at there best of worst acting and actress is here for time-pass of songs. and what u cant forget is the cool dialouge which seems to come in very long time but u cant understand them so easily try hard for that and last word i haven't seen movie complete due to a brain roast so plz tell me ditz end if it have

Young Warriors (1983) <br /><br />While this is a deeply flawed (and in some ways idiotic) movie, the way it continually defies expectations makes it decent viewing for the adventurous sleaze fan.<br /><br />Meet yuppie college student Kevin and his gang of lovable frat boy buddies. In what starts out as a particularly egregious teen sex comedy, we follow this bunch of jerk-offs and their antics, which involve, among other things, making pledges tie bricks to their genitals. The movie abruptly shifts gears when Kevin's high school freshman sister is brutally raped and beaten into a coma by a gang of bikers who apparently have nothing better to do. When she dies in the hospital, Kevin vows revenge, much to the chagrin of his detective father.<br /><br />So far, we've gone from Porky's-lite, through Last House On The Left territory, into what is apparently shaping up to be your typical urban vigilante revenge flick. However, Kevin and his gang's portrayal goes from vaguely sympathetic until they become kill-crazed lunatics. It's to the film's credit that it doesn't glamorize the fascist anti-crime rhetoric that Kevin continually spouts, while still making it understandable that he would feel the way he does.<br /><br />The mood goes from lighthearted to grimy and downbeat very quickly, and by the end it's so over the top and exploitative that it'll leave you incredulous. And that's the strength of this film. You never know what to expect next.<br /><br />At over 100 minutes, it's a little lengthy for this kind of fare, but you won't get bored. Poorly acted for the most part, with cardboard cutouts for characters and some particularly ludicrous situations and rather stupid dialogue, this won't be topping anyone's list of forgotten classics anytime soon. I got a kick out of it though, and I'm sure anyone reading this knows if they're up for it.

Shinjuku Triad Society, albeit from perfect, is a fiercely compelling film for what it tries to depict in its uber-conventional realm. It's a yakuza/triad picture, involving cops versus Japanese &/or Chinese gangsters (mostly Chinese, as the title suggests), but already even in his first technical 'debut', Takashi Miike is already establishing many aspects to films that he would make from here-on in. Social issues like black market trading of precious goods, in this case human organs usually from children; nostalgia for childhood and one's roots, which was especially prevalent in Dead or Alive 2; thumbing-of-the-nose at taboos like gay sex and (satirical) rape/violence towards women; blood-curdling violence. It's certainly not as surreal as some of Miike's most recent films, but this is expected as he's trying out things that he's just starting to learn, following a track record of straight to video programmers. It's got all of those qualities, and it's also, like the films that would follow from it, equally savage and heartfelt, crazy (in spots) and sardonic in its drama, and solid for genre fans.<br /><br />The story concerns two brothers, one a Chinese orphan raised in Japan, Tatsuhito Kiriya (Kippei Shiina, pretty decent as a Eastwood-esquire anti-hero/hero), who's become a detective, and another, who's become a gangster, or a would-be one. The main arch likely takeover gang comes from Wang (a definite pun on what the gang represents during its spare-time, played by Tomorowo Taguchi as a typical wacko with real terror in his eyes), and his partner Karino (Takeshi Caesar, who's threatening even when just repeating a commandment over and over to a woman who's just had her eye plugged out following a sour deal), who are the ruthless kind to pop up almost organically in a Miike movie. There's some intrigue involving the organ-trading scheme with the gangsters, which Kiriya almost becomes a victim of, and the gang's penchant for gay sex- at least with one little puppet of sorts who does whatever the main gangsters want. It all leads up to vengeance and redemption, qualities that Miike and his writer are trying to emulate from Shakespeare (hence the Macbeth bit with Wang washing his bloody hangs over and over after some gay sex saying 'it won't come off').<br /><br />If it doesn't add up to the same emotional level of impact that a great Shakespeare play would have, it's par for the course of a film like this. Miike's goals are met, though just met, in his low-scale ambitions: a gangster picture with some added levels of harsh familial trouble (the main tension between the brothers comes out of profession and duty to parents), notes on the crueler aspects of underworld crime, and what the realm of unrepentant sex, with both sexes, brings out psychologically in the characters. At the same time, Shinjuku Triad Society also contains more than a few moments of classic biting black-comedy from the Miike oeuvre. Some of it just has to be taken with a grain of salt for what the director does in his outrageousness, like the bit at the beginning with the chair smashing over the face, or the randomness of the 'interrogation' as it goes into a very twisted area. There's even a laugh-out-loud line from the young sex-slave after finishing an act on one of the bosses: 'Thank you, Mr. Weeny-Burger.' Miike and his writer don't have enough here to make the film a full-on dark comedy like Ichi or, of course, Visitor Q, but there's enough to bring some appropriate levity to the darker aspects to the story and characters.<br /><br />As the first entry of the 'Black Society' trilogy, as it's called, I was quite impressed, and it's a fine quasi-calling card from one of the craziest new artists in contemporary cinema.

The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched 'Kazzam'.

In reaction to the dullness of the films of actual combat in that time, the wartime public increasingly turned to humor as escape from monotony and anxiety… <br /><br />Charlie Chaplin feared that his great 'Shoulder Arms' would offend people, but it became his greatest hit… In it, Charlie, by luck, courage, and devilish ingenuity wins the war singlehanded and brings a captive Kaiser in triumph to London… <br /><br />The chief difference between this hilarious burlesque and some of the serious war dramas was that in Charlie's case it all turned out to be a dream…

Head should have been a proud moment not just for its stars (The Monkees and Victor Mature), or its director/co-writer (Bob Rafelson), but also its other co-writer (and brief cameo) Jack Nicholson. As it stands, most of them seem to shun it, and to outsiders the movie is regarded, at best, as a curio.<br /><br />While the T.V. series was famously based on the antics of the Beatles' 'Help!', this film is also judged by the same accord. Yet far from the trite and painfully overrated Beatles films, and even the dated Monkees T.V. series, Head has a layer of depth. An undercurrent of man's darker nature is at work here, and while that may sound like a bizarre thing to say about a manufactured pop band, the use of certain themes and images (hitting women, laughing at cripples and real-life footage of a Vietcong POW shot dead at point-blank range) give the film an edge that many 'serious' films would not dare to aspire to.<br /><br />There are also the fun moments, which range from James Bond parodies to 'Big Victor' and my personal favourite, Mickey Dolenz under beseige by Arab soldiers on horseback. (One of them turns to Mickey and hisses 'pssst!', only for the 'pssst!' to appear in subtitles!) The group are aware of their manufactured image in the film ('I'm the dummy, Mickey… I'm always the dummy', claims Tork, neatly summing up his one-dimensional foil role of the series), meaning that their characters – they play 'themselves' acting and not-acting here – are opened out more, and consequently are less generic and irritating than they were in the series. This level of parody and self-awareness even takes on their fab-four origins, with subtler takes on the Maharishi and out-and-out acknowledgements with a waitress who asks: 'Well, if it isn't God's gift to the eight-year-olds… are you still paying tribute to Ringo Starr?' Also listen out for Tork whistling 'Strawberry Fields Forever' while in the bathroom.<br /><br />Then there are the songs, of course. Six of them here, slightly more psychedelic than usual, which may have alienated their fanbase, and even a Frank Zappa cameo wouldn't have turned on an adult audience to their charms at this point. Probably the best is the charming 'As We Go Along', though the first, a Carol King-penned 'Porpoise Song', interestingly talks of the desire to live while time is ticking remorselessly away and death gets ever nearer. On a lighter note, its refrain of 'the porpoise is laughing' seems to be a direct mickey-take of 'I am the Walrus'.<br /><br />Constantly inventive with direct references to silent film and drug culture, perhaps Head's finest feature is its narrative structure. Not the only – but the most important – reason why it improves with multiple viewings, the story goes left, right, forwards, backwards, circular and through several levels of reality. In essence a series of sketches hung loosely together, its cohesion is tightened by the space-time defying plot which hangs its internal logic together by means of flashback, dream sequence, prison of the mind and remote control channel changer.<br /><br />With a perfect beginning and end, this intelligently-written, knowing film was not what The Monkees' pre-teen audience was expecting and subsequently suffered a negative critical reception. Now those expectations have gone, this one is in dire need of serious reappraisal.

I am Curious (Yellow) (a film, in near Seussical rhyme, is said right at the start to be available in two versions, Yellow and Blue) was one of those big art-house hits that first was a major sensation in Sweden then a big scandal/cause-celebre in the United States when the one print was held by customs and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. What's potent in the picture today is not so much what might offend by way of what's revealed in the sex or nudity- the director/'actor' Vilgot Sjoman films the various scenes in such a way that there is an abundance of flesh and genitalia and the occasional graphic bit but it's always more-so an intellectual expression than very lust-like- but the daring of the attempt at a pure 'metafilm' while at the same time making a true statement on the state of affairs in Sweden. Who knew such things in a generally peaceful country (i.e. usually neutral in foreign affairs and wars) could be so heated-up politically? At least, that's part of Sjoman's aim here. <br /><br />Like a filmmaker such as Dusan Makavajev with some of his works like W.R. (if not as surreal and deranged) or to a slightly lesser extent Bertolucci, Sjoman is out to mix politics and sex (mostly politics and social strata) around in the midst of also making it a comment on embodying a character in a film. The two characters, Lena and Borje, have a hot-cold relationship in the story of the film, where Lena is a 'curious' socialist-wannabe who demonstrates in the street for nonviolence and 'trains' sort of in a cabin in the woods to become a fully functioning one, while at the same time maybe too curious about her car salesman boyfriend. And as this is going on, which is by itself enough for one movie, Sjoman inserts himself and his crew from time to time as they are making this story on film (there's even a great bit midway through where, as if at a rock concert, title cards fill in during a break in shooting who the crew are, negating having to use end credits!) Then with this there's a whole other dynamic as Sjoman gives an actual performance, not just a 'hey, I'm the director playing the director' bit.<br /><br />At first, one might not get this structure and that I am Curious (Yellow) is just a film where Lena is a documentary interviewer asking subjects about their thoughts on class, socialism, Spain and Franco, and once in a while we see Lena's father or Bjore. But Sjoman does something interesting: the structure is so slippery as the viewer one has to stay on toes; it's impressive that so many years on a picture can surprise with not being afraid to mix dramatic narrative, documentary, film-within-a-film, and even a serious interview with Martin Luther King, who also acts as a quasi-guru for Lena. It might not always be completely coherent analysis politically, but it doesn't feel cheating or even with much of a satirical agenda like in a Godard picture; the satire Sjoman is after is akin to a Godard but on a whole other wavelength. His anarchy is playful but not completely loaded with semantics or tricks that could put off the less initiated viewer.<br /><br />If I Am Curious (Yellow) stands up as an intellectual enterprise and a full-blown trip into exploring sex in a manner that was and is captivating for how much is shown and how comfortable it all seems to be for the actors, it isn't entirely successful, I think, as an emotional experience. Where Bergman had it down to a T with making a purely emotional film with deconstruction tendencies, Sjoman is more apt at connecting with specific ideas while not actually directing always very well when it comes time to do big or subtle scenes with the actors. Occasionally it works if only for the actors, Lena Nyman (mostly spectacular here in a performance that asks of her to make an ambitious but confused kid into someone sympathetic and vulnerable even) and Borje Ahlstedt (a great realistic counterpoint to the volatile Lena), but some 40 years later its hard to completely connect with everything that happens in the inner-film of Lena and Borje since (perhaps intentionally) Sjoman fills it up with clichés (Borje has a girlfriend and kid, will he leave her, how will Lena reconcile her father) and a heavy-handed narration from his starlet of sorts.<br /><br />And yet, for whatever faults Sjoman may have, ironically considering he means it to be a comment on itself, I Am Curious (Yellow) holds up beautifully as an artistic experiment in testing the waters of what could be done in Swedish cinema, or testing what couldn't be and bending it for provocative and comedic usage. I'd even go as far as to say it's influential, and has probably been copied or imitated in more ways than one due to it being such a cult phenomenon at its time (a specific technique used, with the film rewinding towards the end, is echoed in poorer usage in Funny Games), and should be seen by anyone looking into getting into avant-garde or meta-film-making. If it's not quite as outstanding an artistic leap as W.R. or Last Tango, it's close behind.

There's so little here of the fantastic Anne Rice book that what IS here makes no sense. Some of the characters--intense and surprising characters--don't make it to the screen at all, and those who do are watered down to the point that there's no reason for their existence.<br /><br />Where's the relationship between Christophe and Marcel? Where's the continued affair between Marcel and Juliet? Why does Dolly Rose appear at all, since her story's never explained? Where's the rape and redemption of Marie, whose greatest attribute (and downfall) is that she can pass for white--and her marriage to Richard? Why does the film end with Marcel's beating at the hands of his father? We learn nothing of Aglae beyond that she's a bitch who hates her husband; why no backstory explaining this hatred? <br /><br />As for the performances, there's not a one that's better than mediocre, though that's likely due to the lousy script. Best of the lot is that of the actor playing Richard--but Richard's not on screen enough to salvage the film. Worst is Jasmine Guy as Dolly Rose, though again, it comes down to the actress having nothing to do with what little she's given to work with.<br /><br />All in all, this is just terrible. I thought it'd be impossible for any Anne Rice book-turned film to be worse than EXIT TO EDEN, but FEAST OF ALL SAINTS makes that mess look like a critical hit. How is it that Rice is such a slut she'll allow her best works to become such junk on the screen?

Although most Americans have little knowledge of his work other than Star Wars, Alec Guinness produced an amazing body of work--particularly in the 1940s-1950s--ranging from dramas to quirky comedies. I particularly love his comedies, as they are so well-done and seem so natural and real on the screen--far different from the usual fare from Hollywood.<br /><br />This being said, this was the film that sparked my interest in these movies. It's plot was so odd and cute that it is very unlikely the film would have been made anywhere--except for Ealing Studios--which had a particular fondness for 'little' films like this one.<br /><br />Guinness is a nerdy little scientist that works for a textile company. He wants to experiment in order to create a synthetic fabric that is indestructible, though he is not working for the company as a researcher but for janitorial work! So, he tends to sneak into labs (either during the day if no one suspects or at night) and try his hand at inventing. Repeatedly, he is caught (such as after he blew up the lab) and given the boot until one day he actually succeeds! Then, despite the importance of the discovery, he sets off a completely unanticipated chain of events--and then the fun begins.<br /><br />The film is a wonderful satire that pokes fun at industry, unions, the government and people in general.

Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that 'Barry Lyndon'-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.<br /><br />If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail.

John Cassavetes' 1977 film Opening Night is, what critics usually call the work of such a significant artist, 'overlooked'. It is an excellent film, in its own right, and one of the best portraits of a midlife crisis ever put to film. It's not a perfect film, in that, at two hours and twenty four minutes it's about a half hour too long, and there's a bit too much emphasis on the drunkenness of the lead character Myrtle Gordon, played by Gena Rowlands, the wife of Cassavetes, long after we've gotten the point. But only Woody Allen's masterpiece, Another Woman, which also starred Rowlands, eleven years later, is a better portrait of the internal conflicts of an aging woman. Yet, Rowlands did win the Best Actress Award at the Berlin Film Festival for this portrayal, and it was well deserved. Often this film, written by Cassavetes, is easily compared to his earlier- and inferior- film, A Woman Under The Influence, but it's a spurious comparison. Rowlands' character in that film is severely mentally disturbed from the start, as well as coming from a blue collar background, while her characters in this film and in Allen's film are both artists who are haunted by apparitions. In this film it's the ghost of a dead young woman who can be seen as Myrtle's younger doppelganger, while in Allen's film it's her character's own past…. Many critics have taken this film to be a portrait of an alcoholic, seeing Myrtle surround herself with enablers, such as a stage manager who tells her, during opening night, 'I've seen a lot of drunks in my time, but I've never seen anyone as drunk as you who could stand up. You're great!', but this is wrong, for alcohol isn't her problem- nor is her chain smoking. They are merely diversions from whatever thing is really compelling her to her own destruction, and much to Cassavetes' credit, as a storyteller, he never lets us find out exactly what's wrong with Myrtle, and despite her coming through in the end, there's no reason to expect that she has really resolved anything of consequence. This sort of end without resolution links Cassavetes directly with the more daring European directors of the recent past, who were comfortable in not revealing everything to an audience, and forcing their viewers to cogitate, even if it hurts.<br /><br />Yet, the film recapitulates perfectly the effect of a drunk or fever lifting out of the fog, and as such the viewer again is subliminally involved in its drama. Whether or not Myrtle Gordon does recover, after the film's universe irises about her is left for each and every viewer to decide, and as we have seen before that lid closes, one's choices do matter.