Datasets:

davidadamczyk

/

imdb-balanced

like 0

Not since "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" and the "How High" previews<br /><br />have I laughed so little at something that the film makers thought<br /><br />would be hysterical.<br /><br />Jerry Lewis is the richest man in the world. He is rejected as 4-F<br /><br />by the army, and decides to use his money to raise his own army-<br /><br />of about half a dozen. He then impersonates a Nazi commander in<br /><br />Italy, and eventually tries to kill Hitler. That is the description of the<br /><br />flimsy plot.<br /><br />This film is as funny as a heart attack. This film makes "Hogan's<br /><br />Heroes" look like Shakespeare. If the money men of "The<br /><br />Producers" had really wanted to lose their cash, they should have<br /><br />shown this film. I cannot stress how bad this thing is.<br /><br />Lewis' direction consists of two different cameras shooting the<br /><br />action from two different angles, then being edited together. This<br /><br />sitcom type of direction works on television, but here it is an<br /><br />obvious attempt to cheat the audience. He ends most of his<br /><br />scenes with a still shot, as if giving the viewer a chance to double<br /><br />over in stitches before going to the next tired set up. I spent most of<br /><br />the movie doubled over in abdominal agony, accompanied with<br /><br />severe flatulence, over this thing.<br /><br />Lewis, the director and producer, sets the film in 1943, but makes<br /><br />no attempt to use period costumes or sets. Everyone wears the<br /><br />latest style and has the latest interior design...for 1970. The<br /><br />supporting cast is lost as Lewis goes off on his patented tangents,<br /><br />which last as long as major surgery and are just as painful to<br /><br />watch. When Lewis becomes the Nazi commander, he spends the<br /><br />last half of the film screaming at the top of his lungs in a<br /><br />performance so odious as to stink up any good will you try to bring<br /><br />in at the beginning.<br /><br />The final embarassing shot has Lewis and his cronies trying to<br /><br />put one over on the Japanese. They wear buck teeth, squint their<br /><br />eyes, and talk in a "funny" accent. It may be one of the most<br /><br />blatantly racist occurrences since the internment camps. I was<br /><br />slack jawed at what Lewis did through this whole thing, but that put<br /><br />me over the edge. Watch for Kaye Ballard's very tasteless scene<br /><br />where she tries to attempt suicide over and over again.<br /><br />"Star Trek"'s George Takei has two small scenes, then wisely<br /><br />drops out of the picture. This has less laughs than Mel Brooks' last<br /><br />three films combined. There is nothing sadder than watching a<br /><br />formerly respected comedian screw up a project so horribly, you<br /><br />actually feel ashamed for them. Jim Carrey learned that with "The<br /><br />Majestic," but Jerry Lewis still shows up on television once in a<br /><br />while pulling the same unfunny schtick. I feel sorry for him.<br /><br />"Which Way to the Front?" is cheap, unfunny, offensive, and stupid.<br /><br />I feel bad for everyone involved, and anyone who must endure this.<br /><br />I do not recommend it.<br /><br />Though rated (G), this contains some physical violence, some gun<br /><br />violence, and some adult situations. If your child shows interest in<br /><br />seeing this, please consult professional help.<br /><br />

negative

If you would have asked me 1 month ago how this movie was I probably would have left most of this out, but I am a fan and as any fan I visit the movies sites often well when Super Troopers came out I visited that site after the release on DVD and was hooked yea it's a difficult site to stay on, but the good ones normally are like good families they stick together. What a story this company/comedy troop has.BEGGING people to come and see there movies on street corners,universities, anywhere they can and all for free and after all that to develop a great fan base after a few years THEY CRAP ON IT And decide to close down there website that helped them and was created for the fans, but the worst thing about it....THEY DIDN'T TELL ANY OF THEM. They just decided that they are better than us they want new fans not the fans that helped them get where they are....you know the same fans they begged years ago. Still the smart crew they are they released the best movie with Super Troopers and got everyones attention and thank God for that because after that they have sucked with everything else. Good for you guys way to go mainstream, just remember when you realize your material isn't that good and you have no new fans left you are the ones who crapped the original ones away. FANS MAKE YOU WHO YOU ARE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Never burn your bridges

negative

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.<br /><br />Attributed to Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945<br /><br />When faced with intolerance or injustice, the easiest thing to do is nothing - speak up and you risk becoming an object of scorn. But when does enough become too much? Global anti-Semitic sentiments allowed Hitler's genocidal policies to thrive, and equal doses of fear-mongering and ignorance made it possible for the anti-Communist purges of McCarthyism to destroy thousands of peoples' lives. Inaction makes one no less culpable.<br /><br />Lawrence Newman is a chameleon of a man: quiet and nondescript he blends seamlessly with his surroundings. Lawrence doesn't like to get involved - when he witnesses an attack on a young woman, he tells no one and goes about his business. His world spirals into chaos when he buys a pair of glasses, and is mistaken for one of "them." Lawrence's view of the world and its view of him is forever altered. <br /><br />While the subject matter of this film is not new, its presentation is definitely unique. It is much easier to understand the irrational nature of prejudice, when placed within a certain context - Lawrence is more concerned with the assumptions that he is Jewish, than he is with the views of his attackers. He believes that if he corrects this "oversight" that everything will be all right, not realizing that logic and prejudice never go hand in hand. <br /><br />Whether playing a schemer (the only thing I liked about "Fargo") or a down home nice guy sheriff, William H. Macy's roles are linked by a common thread -his characters share a subtle, deliberate countenance that gives them substance. Macy nails Lawrence down to the smallest detail, and says more with a furtive glance or tremble in his voice than a page of dialogue. By showing, rather than telling, Lawrence is able to share his fear and bewilderment with the viewer. The supporting cast brings the story together.<br /><br />Laura Dern is compelling as Gerty, Lawrence's bombshell wife with a past. Trailer park rough, yet other worldly wise, she has also felt the wrath of prejudice as the result of "a mistake" and unwittingly exacerbates Lawrence's situation. Michael Lee Aday (aka "Meatloaf") is frightening as Fred, the prototypical redneck next door, equal parts ignorance and venom, rallying neighbours to his virulent cause. In the midst of the chaos is Finklestein (David Paymer), the focus of the aggression, and the voice of reason that raises the important questions. Paymer's even handed portrayal keeps Finklestein from becoming a stereotype or someone whose sole purpose is to engender sympathy, making his one of the strongest performances in the film.<br /><br />The tight editing and close-cropped cinematography make for a clean picture with few distractions, and mixes an air of claustrophobia in with the small town USA feel - it is simultaneously comforting and disturbing. The deliberate use of harsh two-tone lighting to accentuate the malevolent aspects of the piece and the carefully scored soundtrack, are powerful without being overwhelming. Finally, the set and costume designs recreate the feel of the era, an essential component in the film's message.<br /><br />"Focus'" unconventional approach in dealing with prejudice is reason enough to recommend this film. Just consider the excellent story, solid acting and look of the film as added bonuses.

positive

This was Barbra Streisand's first television special and is "must see" viewing for any Streisand fan. Even non-Streisand fans will enjoy this highly energetic and entertaining piece of entertainment history. Performers like this only come our way once in a lifetime. Brilliant!

positive

As many people know, Mexican cinema was very poor after the so-called Golden Age of the Mexican Cinema, fortunately, during the late 90's, and early 21st century, great movies like La Ley de Herodes, Bajo California, Amores Perros, Y Tu Mamá También and, of course, El Coronel No Tiene Quien le Escriba, appeared. El Coronel..., is a wonderful movie, that retells the classic story by Gabriel García Márquez, by eliminating the magic realism elements, and replacing them with the crude reality lived in Mexico, not only by people like the Colonel, who wait for their pensions, but by more than the half of the Mexican population, who live in complete poverty. The film's characters, satirically represent classic characters found in Mexican society, such as the nationalist Colonel, the cold and even ambitious priest, the hypocrite, but at the same time loyal compadre, the tolerant and patient wife, the hidden homosexual, etc. This movie, is a must-see if you want to know more about Mexican society, and specially, if you want to watch a gorgeous movie, by one of Mexico's finest directors

positive

This is of of Sammo's great early comedy films. This isn't a parody of enter the dragon, the main character (Sammo) is obsessed with Bruce Lee and emulates him freakishly well for a man of his size. Nominal story about how his fighting keeps causing his loved ones trouble - then fighting. Oh, the fighting. Good, fast-paced scenes with high impact (the white guy who plays a boxer looks like he really gets hurt by one of Sammo's kicks).<br /><br />The funniest bit of this movie was purely unintentional. There is a Jim Kelly looking guy (one of three experts hired to take out Sammo), but he was a Chinese guy in blackface with an afro-wig. Come on, didn't they have any real black people in Hong Kong in 1978? Well, I guess I've seen enough white fake-as-hell "Chinese people" in old American movies too.<br /><br />This is one is for any Sammo or Bruce Lee fan.

positive

Without a doubt, the WORST movie I have ever seen in my life. There was nothing entertaining about this film. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but it actually made me cry at the thought of losing the $4.75 admission price.

negative

I was not making big assumptions on the fact that this for sure was a very, very free adaptation from the work of Eça de Queiroz, and I must say that this free adaptation form the book as a lot of possible good ideas and characters. The problem is the way that is done, without any care, without any taste, just a rumble of bad taste clichés everywhere. The script is so fake and the characters so unreal that's makes petty seeing nice actors as Unas, Bryner, Morgado, Lagarto and others, lost themselves in a net of whatever except cinema or storytelling. For my surprise the newcomers Jorge Corrula and Soraia Chaves bravely stick in their performances, but you can see them lost like a drifted boat without any direction. And talking about direction, this seems to be something totally missing on this movie…where's the Director? Everything is bad taste; the frames are whatever, and whenever, the use of hand camera without any justified reason, the light design that should build environments doesn't exist (and no excuses that the all point is a dark real story). The problem overall in this "trying to be" film is that as no taste, or very, very bad taste. It's sad to see Jorge and Soraia melting away in such fake and gratuity sex scenes, painted here and there trough out the movie like closing narratives holes or used as fakes transition motives. Maybe Carlos Coelho da Silva should see the 2002 Carlos Carrera adaptation of the same book of Eça and get the felling of how to build a true movie.

negative

Ronald Colman plays a famous Broadway actor who has begun to lose his mind and sense of identity. After years of playing a wide range of parts, he can't remember who he exactly is--who are his roles and who is the self. And, much more serious, he begins to see and hear his play even in regular everyday life. So, since he's currently playing in "Othello", he begins to act jealous and suspicious--just like the title character. Ultimately, it leads him to the depths of insanity and murder.<br /><br />I saw this film years ago and liked it. I just saw it again and loved it. Now perhaps some of my enthusiasm is because I have always liked Ronald Colman and this is a great triumph for him--and for which he earned the Best Actor Oscar. And, looking at the competition that year (Gregory Peck for GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, John Garfield for BODY AND SOUL, William Powell for LIFE WITH FATHER and Michael Redgrave for MOURNING BECOMES ELECTRA), I think Colman was a very good choice, as he stretched from his usual comfort zone and did a much more demanding role.<br /><br />Now I noticed that one reviewer hated this film because they hated Shakespeare--and this took up about half their review talking about their dislike for him. However, this film isn't really about Shakespeare, and it doesn't matter at all if you dislike Shakespeare. I am no huge fan of Shakespeare, but marveled at the small portions of the play that Colman re-enacted--though, as I said, this is NOT a really movie about Shakespeare. Instead, it's a wonderful portrait of an actor losing his mind and mixing his stage role with reality. It could have been ANY play, though "Othello" was an excellent choice because of the murder scene--which gets acted out for real later in the film.<br /><br />Overall, a very clever film due to a lovely script--with some overtones of Film Noir. Fortunately, the acting was terrific also, as Colman had excellent support from Signe Hasso, Shelly Winters and Edmond O'Brien (who was particularly good--he played his part just right). And, considering the great George Cukor was directing, it's no wonder it's a wonderful film from start to finish.

positive

I originally saw this movie in a movie theater on Times Square in the late eighties. Who would have thought this film would spawn two sequels and have this cult following.Night of the Demons was like most other films that came out at the time.A group of horny teenagers find themselves trapped in some isolated local and then are killed off one at a time in various gruesome ways.Come to think of it the formula still is used and still seems to work as evidenced by Saw II that I recently saw.<br /><br />I saw Mimi Kinkade at a Fangoria convention about six years ago and she was so gentle hearted!I guess that makes her a pretty good actress if she could make a career out of playing this demon possessed woman in all these horror flicks.Anyway, I just this film again on VHS cassette and this movie still holds up.A little slow at the beginning as I remembered when I first saw it but then it quickly picks up pace. One of the eighties horror classics and worth a look!

positive

Entertaining musical where Nathan Detroit needs $1,000.00 to get up a floating crap game so he entices Sky Masterson to try and get salvation army girl, played by Jean Simmons, to go with Masterson to Havana.<br /><br />5 years later, Simmons would be in the missionary again in the fabulous "Elmer Gantry." There she was sister Sharon and here she is Sister Sarah. Same temperament, different story.<br /><br />Frank Sinatra is that devilish Nathan Detroit. He has been engaged to Vivian Blaine for 14 years and she loathes his gambling habit.<br /><br />In a real change of pace, Sky Masterson was played by Marlon Brando who actually did his own singing here!<br /><br />The film is saved by superlative choreography. Those dance and singing routines are fabulous. They are especially realized by Stubby Kaye as Nicely Nicely (Johnson).<br /><br />All in all, it's a very nice production.

positive

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

negative

This is an amazingly well-filmed early talkie adaptation of the Eugene O'Neill play. Its major drawback is a static camera, and as a result it comes off much of the time as the filmed play it is, which is a pity, for it's a good piece of primitive moviemaking, made at a time when sound was posing all kinds of technical problems, and as a result most films were experimental whether or not this was their maker's intention. Garbo is as mysterious and charismatic as she was in her silent films, and her entrance is still classic. Her voice is strangely deep, almost boyish, which only enhances her already seductively eccentric persona. As her boyfriend, Charles Bickford is appropriately virile,--he was apparently born craggy--and a perfect counterpart to the divine Garbo. His Irish brogue is not bad at all, and he seems always a natural man of the sea, very O'Neill-like in his independent, brooding nature. As Garbo's (very) confused father, George Marion seems truly from another time. He has the sort of face and voice,--open, unmannered, totally without guile--that has vanished from the earth. Marie Dressler is also in the O'Neill swing of things. Her blank expression and intensity around the eyes speaks volumes, as she plays her boozy character as a woman at times bordering on psychosis. Poetic license, perhaps, as this is not in the script, but we can forgive Miss Dressler's excesses; she is too good at it not to. The story ends with a movement to the next thing, as distinct from resolution, which isn't the author's cup of tea; and those who like their films neatly worked out in the end will be disappointed by the absence of any real surprise. In Anna Christie we are in O'Neill country, a place of sea, storms and fog, a feeling of all-pervading and damnable uncertainty, which we would now call ambivilance, or anxiety neurosis. Rather than analyze this mood the author simply and wisely presents it, as weather, land, ocean and people intertwine and address one another in a unique language we feel priveleged to have heard.

positive

I am glad I saw this film having seen some of the director's other films in the past. I thought the production values was great like the costumes and settings with the bridge. It was interesting to see how the concept of spirit and demons were handled.<br /><br />I do agree with some of the other comments about the fight scenes. They were hard to follow at times.<br /><br />Ultimately, a moral tale. It would be interesting to know what some Japanese viewers thought of the film. It is a film I would like to see again.<br /><br />Some scenes like the ones where Benkai and the Prince were fighting on a "psychic" level were well done.<br /><br />I did come out of the cinema thinking what has just happened here. Intense.

positive

Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances.

negative

Henry Hathaway was daring, as well as enthusiastic, for his love of the people of the early days in US history. However, to critique historical inaccuracies of his film about Brigham Young and the Mormon people are not necessary or useful in commenting for this film. In my opinion, Hathaway did superb direction that conveys what a Mormon people were in the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints during the time period beginning with the martyrdom of Joseph Smith to the date of film release. In often subtle filming and dialog delivery, he covered Mormon philosophies and teachings in many of the segments and scenes.<br /><br />I remember watching this movie on many Saturday mornings during my youth in the early 1950's. That was just over 10 years after the films release and before the Los Angeles Temple was completed, which I watched being constructed and instilled more curious wonder of who Mormons were. I recently purchased this film and will enjoy the following messages that Hathaway interpreted in his film.<br /><br />1. Love for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, 2. Charity to those in need or not, 3. Family is high in importance, 4. Listen respectfully and carefully, because even opposing messages have important points to consider and adopt, 5. Work hard, both individually and in community, 6. Prepare and store for future days of need, 7. Hope is a binding link to a higher being, and for our daily lives, 8. And, that there is a unique quality to any group, and appreciate those that are identified as beneficial.

positive

Not only have I read the book and watched the movie, but I was stationed on the USS John F Kennedy when they filmed this. Needless to say, Film crews and actors can be trying to people trying to do their jobs. Now, about the movie. As a career Navy man, I was pretty upset on how they showed life on board an Aircraft Carrier. I could pick apart the inaccuracies throughout the movie (anyone that has lived on a carrier could), but that would take pages. One scene that stands out in particular was when they were in the CIC (Combat Information Center) and they were watching a RADAR contact move across the screen. Each time the contact moved, it beeped. Unfortunately, that equipment doesn't beep like that (I was a technician on that equipment). The book was based upon fact, the movie wasn't. The follow on TV series was just as bad and the Navy finally realized that support for this series would just make them look bad. If you're a Navy person, watch this to see how a movie about carrier life is seen from the eyes of Hollywood. If your not a Navy person, watch Midway or Top Gun, at least those movies are entertaining and based upon fact.

negative

As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline had promise.<br /><br />However, director Eric Red's inability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of continuity and lighting errors.<br /><br />Ultimately, the viewer is more spellbound by the bizarre weather effects than the intended storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are similarly distracting.<br /><br />Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best to save the movie. But ultimately, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot.

negative

I love horror films, but I think they work way better when they hide a dramatic impact behind (The Devil's Backbone, The Exorcist, for example). This is that kind of film, and it's not only eerie and terrifying when it has to be, it is also really beautiful. A Tale of Two Sisters starts really slow, so if you're in a hurry to see ghosts in the first 20 minutes you will be disappointed. Actually this is not a ghost story –though there are some. It's something more complex, and it's done in such a way that it beats Ringu and The Grudge out of the ring no sweat. A Tale… is a way more clever film than those huge cultural hits, because it really cares for its characters, and the direction is flawless. Every detail in this film will leave you breathless if you're the kind of person who loves to pay attention to details while watching a movie. The acting is superb, specially from the stepmother and the main girl. Those two are worth the price of the ticket alone. Do yourself a favor and watch this awesome film.

positive

Only watched this to see Joe Morton in an early role and honestly wished I hadn't bothered, he can and has since, done much better than this crap. Cannot understand why anyone finds this kind of stupidity funny but each to his own; it is an absolute mess and not funny in the least. No wait, ONE line only was funny, where Mr Kent (Joe) and his family are having dinner with this nut job as he's been invited for dinner (Lord alone knows why). Pest to Mr Kent: You know what it's like dog, you've been there Mrs Kent: Not lately, Joe's expression was funny but that's it one line does not make a great comedy and this tat is so far away from being funny it should be consigned to the nearest trash cart, it's only good enough for that. Joe Morton - glad to see you don't appear in rubbish like this anymore; you are far superior and a great great actor.

negative

During the cheap filmed in video beginning of Crazy Fat Ethel II, I wondered if it was the same film that was on the cover. Unfortunately, it was. The story itself is mindlessly simple. Ethel, a homicidal maniac with an eating disorder, is released into a halfway house because of hospital overcrowding. She is by far the most sane resident watching while one man puts dead flies into another's soup. Ethel is then teased by one of the halfway house employees with a chocolate bar after he hits on the cost cutting measure of feeding the residents dog food. Ethel retaliates by strangling him with a wire noose on the stairs and then....well, you get the idea. If this all sounds like fun, it isn't. This film was poorly made with cheap effects and even worse acting. The characters are so wooden when delivering their lines that they should be standing out in front of a cigar store. To make matters worse, half of the film consists of flashbacks to the first Ethel movie, Criminally Insane, which is little better. A VERY poor effort.

negative

Soylent Green IS...a really good movie, actually.<br /><br />I never would've thought it. I don't really like Heston in his sci-fi efforts. He's one of those actors who, like Superman, manages to come across all sneery and invincible most of the time. I prefer more vulnerable heroes. And indeed, he sneers his way through much of Soylent Green, too, but as he's supposed to be playing an overconfident bully I don't really mind.<br /><br />I can understand why some people would turn their noses up at this movie. Soylent Green makes no effort whatsoever to create futuristic visuals (what do you know - it looks just like 1973), and it's lacking in action. But I admired the film's vision of a complex, corrupt, and highly stratified society, and I was so pleased to see that Edward G. Robinson had such a moving, funny final role. Nice little character moments - like when he shares some precious food with Heston - really make the movie.<br /><br />The message of Soylent Green is pretty relevant these days, when nobody seems to know what the hell the government or corporations are up to. Funny, isn't it, to see Heston in a prototype Michael Moore movie...

positive

Simply the best Estonian film that I have ever seen, although it is made by a Finnish director Ilkka Järvi-Laturi. Tallin Pimeduses is an entertaining thriller about a bunch of gangsters who are trying to steal a huge amount of gold, a national treasure that belongs to the republic of Estonia. But at the same time it is some kind of a summary of the conditions of many Eastern European countries at that time. In the early 90s Soviet Union fell into pieces and many countries, such as Estonia, became independent. Now the conditions may be better in most of those countries. But in the beginning of the 90s many of those new nations had to fight against corruption and organized crime that the Soviet era had left them as inheritance. (And many of them still do...at least on some level...) <br /><br />Tallinn Pimeduses is a very realistic film of that era with believable characters and with a well-written script. The actors are also very good, especially Jüri Järvet (perhaps the best known Estonian actor, plays Snaut in Tarkovski's Solaris), playing and old gangster who's slowly becoming tired of his way of life. But the most astonishing performance comes from Monika Mäger, a child-actor playing Terje, a boyish girl in her early teens, whose presence in the plot is quite essential. (and her name is not even mentioned in the IMDb-credit list!!!)w<br /><br />There are not many films in the world that manage to be entertainment and artistic at the same time. But Tallinn Pimeduses does that. Unfortenately Järvi-Laturi's other films are far from this kind of achievements. His first one, Kotia päin was too artificial and his latest, History is Made at Night was just a weird mess.

positive

Gerald McRaney,(Dave Morgan),"War Crimes",'01 TV Series, was like a father to Tiffani Thiessen,(Jennifer Gallagher),"A Kiss Before Lying",'03, who experience a very bad situation in her life and it caused Jennifer to be withdrawn with people and young men. Dave Morgan tries desperately to get her out of the house and manages to introduce Jennifer to Chris (Gallagher) who falls madly in love with her at their very first meeting. In almost one or two dates later, Chris asks Jennifer if she will marry him and she agrees. It is not very long after the Wedding that things start to happen, Chris is in the Navy and does not like working in submarines and things start happening to young gals in the neighborhood. This is a very excellent TV film and it sometimes makes you wonder if the guy or gal I want as a Soul Mate is the Perfect PERSON !

positive

The weakest of the 'old' crew Star Trek films, this film suffers from an awful script and obvious budget constraints, particularly in the mishandled finale. The bones of a good movie are here, and the directing from Shatner is not as bad as is commonly made out, but the characters end up speaking and acting way out of the style that the previous 3 films had carefully established. Lawrence Luckinbull is convincing as the renegade Vulcan with msyterious and mystical powers to influence people and these powers are responsible for some of the best scenes, particularly for Deforest Kelley who shines as 'Bones' McCoy in this his second last movie. However, as good as those scenes are, they ultimately do not advance the plot, and end up feeling as more of a distraction. A great score from the ever reliable Goldsmith and some funny scenes in Yosemite between the main three are not enough to cover the gaping chasms in the plot, and the frankly embarassing attempts at humour serve only to alienate even die hard trekkies. All in all, a wealth of possibilities which although it fails to deliver, has its moments. Watch out for the pool table in the bar brawl scene...

negative

So I had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. As I watched it for the first time I was expecting another romantic, tear-jerking Barbra Streisand film; Something like The Way We Were. I was certainly wrong. The chemistry between the two main characters, Esther Hoffman and her John Howard, was nonexistent, making it impossible to get attached to the characters. There wasn't anything romantic about it. Streisand's character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn't sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast-forward button. At one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. There's nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can't seem to realize it until he actually dies. Parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on, and I kept asking myself when it was going to end.<br /><br />The death of John Howard was completely predictable. There was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie, and when he died I felt no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't a tragic accident, it was him basically being an idiot. Not to mention throughout the movie I was distracted by his hideous beard.<br /><br />The only parts of this movie worth seeing are the Streisand songs. The ending of the movie when she sings "With One More Look At You/Watch Closely Now" was my reason for giving this film a whopping 3/10. Those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie I actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger.

negative

This is a great film with an amazing cast. Crispen Glover is at his freakiest . His guitar solo is amazing. Also watch out for a cameo by William Burroughs. Truly a cult classic. This is on my top ten list. Don't miss this twisted film.

positive

Why is there so much angst among the IMDb reviewers who hate this film? It isn't a masterpiece, but having viewed it twice it does come across as compelling drama set in the world of network TV. Robin Stone is the epitome of every Dan Rather, Phillip Stone, and Brian What's-his-name on NBC. A mannequin of a man incapable of love who succeeds professionally, but fails miserably in his personal life. I worked for eight (8) years in network news and Robin Stone's DO EXIST!<br /><br />The supporting cast works for me from Cannon (who can be annoying, but isn't in this film) to Greene (who plays pathos just right) to Wexler (who scores as the young model in love w/ the image of Prince Charming and can't reconcile that image w/ the true ugliness inside). Also of note is the ending which some IMDb reviewers claim is a cop-out. It's not! Listen to the song "He's Moving On" for clues as to the arc the Robin Stone character travels that brings him to finally face his issues. He realizes the answers don't lay w/ the life he's lived and the symbolic walk away from those he's associated himself with, at the end is perfect.

positive

Now infamous Western that was (at its time) the biggest budgeted disaster in Hollywood history. I was "lucky" enough to see the full 220 minute version at a theatre in 1990. It was truly staggering how BAD the film was!<br /><br />They had a great cast, a story based on a true incident (a fight between foreigners and Americans in the 1800s), magnificent scenery...so what went wrong? Three words--director Michael Cimino. He was so full of himself after "The Deer Hunter" he went out and made this god awful Western. He's not totally to blame. His previous film "The Deer Hunter" was considered a masterpiece and United Artists gave him free reign to do anything. They let him all alone...and everything went wrong. The cost went barreling out of control and Cimino insisted on redoing sequences again and again until they were perfect.<br /><br />First off, the sound is horrible. Entire sequences go by and you can't make out a word the characters are saying. For instance, Jeff Bridges' character is introduced during a dance sequence, but I STILL have no idea who he was! The dialogue in his introductory scene is incomprehensible! That's the director's fault--he should have made sure the dialogue could be heard. Some scenes are shot with so much dust flying around you can barely make out what's going on. The story line doesn't make a whole lot of sense and Cimino took great liberties with the facts--in the real story only one person was killed--Cimino turns it into a massacre. There is some admittedly beautiful sequences here totally destroyed by lack of story and incomprehensible dialogue. Also the bad sound was not the fault of the theatre--all the prints sound that way.<br /><br />This garbage effectively closed down United Artists and was the end of Cimino's career. A textbook example of a director so full of himself he doesn't realize what he's doing. Jeff Bridges has said this is the worst movie he ever did. This is from a guy who made "Tron"! A definite must-miss.<br /><br />There is a pretty good book called "The Final Cut" which details the whole disaster. This gets a 1. I wish IMDb had negative numbers--this deserves it!

negative

No, it's just a cheap 1940s serial using the Cap's good name. If you are a fan of the comic book, you will be greatly disappointed. They have radically changed the character. No shield, no Bucky, no fighting the Nazis, no wings on the side of his mask and most importantly: Captain America is now a District Attorney and no longer a GI.<br /><br />Dick Purcell as Captain America? Don't look too closely when he changes into his costume. It is pretty obvious that he was not in the best physical shape when he made this serial(can you say flabby?). It is also VERY obvious that a stunt man is performing most of the action here. Almost every chapter has an obligatory fist fight that is shot and performed in exactly the same way. The villain is rather bland and although he uses an alias (The Scarab), he doesn't wear a disguise of any kind. The story is repetitive and very simple. The effects are laughable and the action is average. On the plus side we have sexy Lorna Gray as the D.A.'s assistant and the good Captain gets to ride on a cool looking motorcycle in one early chapter. Overall OK but nothing special.

negative

George Cukor is and always will be one of my favorites. The unsung hero of his generation. Nobody mentions Cukor in the same breath as John Ford, Howard Hawks, William Wyler or Billy Wilder and yet, look at his filmography. From sparkling comedies "The Philadelphia Story" "Adam's Rib" "Holiday" Psycho melodramas "Gaslight" "A Double Life" a great semi western "Heller in Pink Tights" not to mention "My Fair Lady" or "Travels with my Aunt" He was at the service of his actors, he never put himself in front of the camera. I feel a certain tenderness watching "Rich and Famous" flashes of the old master still very much in evidence. Candice Bergen gives us for the first time in her career glimpses of the wonderful comedian she was about to become. Jacqueline Bisset is a throwback to the days of Greer Garson and Loretta Young and Hart Bochner steps in, teasing us, promising something spectacular that will eventually materialize in 1989 with "Apartment Zero", Meg Ryan, as Bergen's daughter is already Meg Ryan. As tired as the formula is, it remains a Cukor film and for what I gather one of Almodovar's favorite movies.

positive

The other day I showed my boyfriend a great movie, Stand By Me, a movie I have shown to many people and they absolutely adored it, but for some odd reason he didn't like it. He lends me a movie called Backdraft and he tells me that he's shown it to many people and they loved it, instead I hated this movie. I don't think I've hated a movie so much in a while, how this movie has even a 6.6 rating is beyond me. I couldn't keep up with the five million stories here: Billy Baldwin becoming a fire man, the random sibling rivalry, the random love story(s), the who's being an arson story, the investigator, the fire who has a personality of it's own. I just have a problem that this movie can't keep up with all these stories, they didn't balance out well enough make the film interesting. I would have just preferred if this movie was about being a firefighter or the investigator and how he came to be one or what it is exactly he does and why.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of a group of Chicago firefighters, two brothers. Stephen "Bull" McCaffrey, the elder brother, is obsessed with the beating of the fires that he fights. Brian, the younger brother quit the fire fighting academy school several years before, then embarking on a number of other unsuccessful careers before returning to become a firefighter. He is looked down on by his elder brother who expects him to fail in his newly chosen career as a fire fighter. Donald "Shadow" Rimgale is an arson investigator who is dedicated to his profession. He is called in because a number of fires that have occurred have somewhat similar connections. .Martin Swayzak is an alderman on the City Council. He has obvious hopes of being elected to mayor, but has had to make a number of budget cuts to the fire department. Many of the rank and file firemen believe that the cuts that he has made are endangering the lives of the firefighters. However, Swayzak is initially successful in portraying the fire department as bloated and ineffectual after firemen are repeatedly being killed in blazes.<br /><br />I just couldn't get into this movie, I don't know how anyone else could, it was incredibly unrealistic and portrayed firefighters all wrong. I loved how they had every action cliché in the book to match this action flick. I just felt also like there was great talent wasted on such mediocre roles, Donald Sutherland, great actor, but such a strange role that could have been taken by a lesser known man who had the upcoming talent at the time. I know Ron was going for great quality, but I think him casting such huge actors in small roles was a mistake for this film. I even had to joke my way through while watching this movie commenting how the doctor in the background was probably Kevin Spacey. The fire was so unrealistic and the movie was just so out there, I didn't enjoy it and honestly wouldn't recommend it to people, I'll stick to the recommendations in my relationship from this point on.<br /><br />2/10

negative

I haven't seen this movie in years, the last time i did i was really drunk after 5 pints of tenant's at my local Witherspoon's but even then i though it was quite awful. this movie is pretty terrible compared to the other critters movies, the first two were quite good, 3 was quite crap but miles better than this. The story takes place 53 years after critter's 3, were Charlie the bounty hunter from the previous movies is found floating in a pod in outer space by a crew of some kind of space miner,em,people and taken on board. Once on board the last critter eggs left in the galaxy which Charlie has brought with him from Earth crack open and we then have critters on board the space ship, cue an obvious 'Alien' rip off and a lot of terrible FX and you pretty much have this movie in a nutshell. only good thing is when we are re-introduced to UG(or so we are lead to believe) who is now a villain and wants to preserve the critters instead of destroying them

negative

Many reviewers seem to prefer the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, which I have not had the opportunity to view. By itself, the '56 version is a very well done film. The run of mid-to-late fifties Hitchcock films (including "Rear Window", "Dial M For Murder", "Vertigo", and "To Catch A Thief", as well as this film) is one of my favorite periods in his career. In The Man Who Knew Too Much, Jimmy Stewart throws himself vigorously into his role as always. Doris Day is very believable in the role of an atypical Hitchcock blond. I thought there was nothing fake about her performance. Her character may not have been written as strongly as the original, but she's definitely not reduced to the role of a passive, "Yes, dear", pretty thing on Jimmy Stewart's arm.<br /><br />There were some really clever lines written for Hank (the couple's son who later gets kidnapped) in the opening scene on the bus- it's too bad Christopher Olsen read them so woodenly. It's rare to see a good performance from a child actor in the 50s, though. Most of the rest of the supporting actors in this film were very competent, though- most notably the assassin (played by Reggie Nalder). <br /><br />Some little touches that make this film undeniably Hitchcockian- the use of non-English dialog, especially French (something Hitch did on a much larger scale in "To Catch A Thief"); the use of foreboding, Arabic music in the hotel when the assassin appears; Stewart and Day talking to each other in the church, singing their words to the tune of the hymn; the Albert Hall scene, specifically showing the musicians and the assassin's accomplice following the score, building up tension, as well as the percussionist getting the cymbals ready; and finally the assassin's gun as it appears from behind the curtain. It moves so slowly and precisely that it must have been done mechanically (an effect Hitch used at the end of "Spellbound", also).<br /><br />All in all, The Man Who Knew Too Much is a fun film to watch. It's not as deep or as heavily laden with symbolism as some of his films ("Vertigo", "Strangers on a Train"), but all the same it is one of my top five Hitchcock masterpieces.

positive

I really wanted to like this movie. A film with zombie children getting out of a mine to kill people at night really seemed like a great idea for a horror film. Unfortunately, the film was in the bottom 3 of films played at horror fest.<br /><br />A mother and her two daughters attempt to move on after her husband/father had passed away from an illness that cost their family a lot of money. They have to adapt to their new environment. They end up struggling due to all the surroundings for different reasons.(Crazy Zombie kids go into this category) The film never gives any sentimental attachment for anyone that lives or dies, the film produces no scares or jump worthy moments, the film barely shows the children doing what they're supposed to do...Kill! With a bigger budget and a better cast this film could have hope. Until then, pass on it.<br /><br />3.5/10 actually.

negative

What can I say about this film other than the narrative is one of the most exciting in film history...and based on a true story! Being old enough to remember the Berlin Wall when it was still used to contain a country, this film gives you a dark insight into the grim incarceration of East Berliners, and their desperate attempts to escape, no matter what the cost. The film follows the lives of two families , who decide to escape using a hot-air balloon manufactured by themselves. Forever fearing arrest by the authorities, under scrutiny by neighbours, they have to calculate a plan to reach the other side of the wall. A tense & thrilling story of courage and determination which truly pays homage to all those who succeeded and failed the treacherous journey to West Berlin and freedom.

positive

A frustrating documentary. Louis Kahn's son, who saw his father only minimally during his childhood because he was a member of just one of the three separate families his father had created, takes on the task of trying to learn more about his father through an exploration of his architecture and his life. It sounds like a great idea for a documentary, but it ends up flat and uninteresting.<br /><br />Sadly, the basic problem is that Kahn's son, Nathaniel, is not just one of the film's protagonists --- he is also director, writer, producer, interviewer and narrator. Nathaniel seems both too inexperienced and possibly too close to the material to function well in any of these roles. Further, while he seems like a nice enough guy, he doesn't have much screen presence, so the fact that he is the only constant in the film becomes wearing. <br /><br />Nathaniel also comes across as an unprepared and amateurish interviewer --- there are several points where an interviewee makes an interesting or provocative statement and the camera cuts to a shot of Nathaniel offering little more than a blank stare and a sort of timid "uh-huh," as if he's a little panicked that he's going to have to come up with something to say in response. At times, I felt embarrassed watching people who might have had truly interesting things to say about Kahn (or at least better things to do with their time) seeming to realize that they were in the hands of an interviewer who was going to rely on them to direct the conversation. <br /><br />Nathaniel's dual role as both documentarian and lost son seem to do more to hurt the film than help. One senses that some of the interviewees are a little reluctant to really open up about negative aspects of Kahn's personality and career, presumably because it's not clear from Nathaniel whether he's looking to dig into the truth or simply wants to hear nice stories about his Dad -- preferably ones that will confirm his hope that his Dad really did care more for Nathaniel and his mother than seems likely. His passive approach as an interviewer may stem directly from this conflict. The only person Nathaniel does push is his own mother, but those conversations tend to feel a little like bad teen drama (Aren't you ANGRY, Mom?") and don't offer much in terms of helping us (or Nathaniel) understand Kahn or the loyalty he evoked from those around him. <br /><br />What the film desperately lacks is shaping by an experienced and independent hand, not to exclude Nathaniel, but to balance his subjectivity and inexperience. An independent director could have stood away from the material, given more thought to what the interviewees could contribute and, one hopes, cut out those portions of the documentary process that just don't work, such as the weird segment with the guy who claims to have see Kahn die (which made it look as if Nathaniel was just being taken in by some loony) or the entire bit about hooking up with Kahn's first cousin, who had nothing to add about Kahn or Nathaniel. Too many times Nathaniel makes us watch him standing in or near a Kahn building buttonholing strangers to tell them that his father was the designer. (Ahhh… huh. Thaaat's nice, sir. Umm…I gotta go now.) I understand why these things might be important to Nathaniel and that showing the documentary process is sometimes interesting, but this is one of those examples of when a documentary can be TOO personal.<br /><br />As an aside, I thought the score written for the film was great! (But, one of the oddest moments in the entire thing for me was when, during the tour of the Kimball Art Museum, the voice-over quotes Kahn as making a comparison between architecture and Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. The music being played at the same time? Beethoven's NINTH Symphony. A mistake? A miscue? Who knows? It did make me laugh.) <br /><br />Kahn was a great architect and it's clear that he was an unusual human being and had an intriguing life story. There's definitely a good documentary to be made about him. One is sympathetic to Nathaniel's search for the father he didn't know, but I'm not sure whether THAT is an interesting story. Neither works so well in this film.

negative

I really enjoyed this film because I have a tremendous interest in American History... the Antebellum years and the Civil War in particular. I purchased it recently from a rack of previously-viewed videos on sale at the supermarket and I was very glad to add this one to my history video collection. Though not of the caliber of Civil War films such as "Glory" or "Gettysburg," provides a lot of history on the pre-Civil War brotherhood among cadets at West Point.<br /><br />Maybe it's the gray uniforms, the youth, or the military discipline, but I am fascinated by the story of the Corps of Cadets from around 1830 to the brink of the War. I imagine what it must have been like to sit in a classroom with other young men, learning how to make war, then later putting the lessons to use against your own classmates!<br /><br />Actually, there were two classes graduated in 1861: one class in May, the other in June. the movie makes no real mention of this, except to mention Henry A. DuPont, first graduate of the May Class; and George Custer, last grad of the June Class. the reason for the two classes was not so much about the war, but it was the result of switching back to a four-year course of study, after a few years of experimenting with a five-year course (I think the first class had attended five years, the other for four). As the movie portrays, cadets were like brothers and often had nicknames for each other... George "Fanny" or "Autie" Custer; Alonzo "Lon" Cushing; James "Beauty" Stuart (for J.E.B. Stuart, class of 1854), etc.<br /><br />I say this film is "Santa Fe Trail" as it should have been because that 1940 film, while enjoyable, really fudges history. Cadets from several different classes are all graduating together. JEB Stuart and George Custer are portrayed as the best of friends and are side-by-side in stopping John Brown's 1859 insurrection at Harper's Ferry. In fact, Stuart and Custer were never friends, but enemies during the War. They faced each other (for the first time, I think) at Gettysburg in 1863 (Stuart was at the Harper's ferry Raid, but Custer was still a cadet at the Point when it took place).<br /><br />"Fanny" Custer plays a role in "Class of '61," though his classmate chums, Dev O'Neill and Shelby Peyton are fictional. I believe they are respectively based on Partick Henry O'Rorke and John Pelham, two people you can look up.<br /><br />Anyway, I truly enjoy this film or any film which provides a window into mid-19th Century America.

positive

<br /><br />I watched this movie just a little while ago and I found that this movie was terrible! It moved very slowly and was hardly entertaining!<br /><br />Sorry for all those that liked it.... this is only my opinion!

negative

This movie is definately one of my favourite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally uncorruptable characters is an ode to chivalry and the honour code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is flowless and honest to the spectator, wich is an important asset in a genre in wich the the suspense is often achieved through the betrail of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savour every minute, not just to see.

positive

Parsifal (1982) Starring Michael Kutter, Armin Jordan, Robert Lloyd, Martin Sperr, Edith Clever, Aage Haugland and the voices of Reiner Goldberg, Yvonne Minton, Wolfgang Schone, Director Hans-Jurgen Syberberg.<br /><br />Straight out of the German school of film, the kind that favored tons of symbolism and Ingmar Bergmanesque surrealism, came this 1982 film of Wagner's final masterpiece- Parsifal, written to correspond with Good Friday/Easter and the consecration of the Bayreuth Opera House. This film follows the musical score and plot accurately but the manner in which it was filmed and performed is bold and avant-garde and no other Parsifal takes the crown in its bizarre cinematography. Syberberg is known for controversial films. Prior to this film he had released films about Hitler and Nazism, Richard Wagner and his personal Anti-Semitism and a documentary about Winifred Wagner, one of his grand-daughters. This film is possibly disturbing in many aspects. Parsifal (sung by Reiner Goldberg but acted by Michael Kutter) is a male throughout the first part of the film and then, after the enchantment of Kundry's kiss, is transformed into a female. This gender-bending element displays the feminine/masculine/ying-yang nature of the quest for the Holy Grail, which serves all mankind and redeems it through Christ's blood. In the pagan sorcerer Klingsor's fortress, there are photographs of such notoriously sinister figures as Hitler, Nietzche, Cosima Wagner and Wagner's mistress Matilde Wesendock. The Swaztika flag hangs outside the fortress. Parsifal journeys into the 19th and 20th century throughout the film. The tempting Flower Maidens are in the nude. Kundry is portrayed as a sort of beautiful but corrupt Mary Magdalene or Eve from Genesis (played by Edith Clever but beautifully sung by mezzo-soprano Yvonne Minton). Ultimately, this film is for fans of this type of bizarre Germanic/European symbolic metafiction and for intellectuals who appreciate the symbolism, the history and lovers of Wagner opera. Indeed, the singing is grand and compelling. Reiner Goldberg's Parsifal is a focused and intense voice but it lacks the depth and overall greatness of the greater Parsifals of the stage - James King, Wolfgang Windgassen, Rene Kollo and today's own Placido Domingo. Yvone Minton is a sensual-voiced, dramatic and exciting Kundry, delving into her tormented state perfectly. While the production is certainly unorthodox and as un-Wagnerian as it can possibly get (Wagner's concept was Christian ceremonial pomp with Grails, spears, castles, Knights and wounded kings, a dark sorcerer, darkness turning into light, etc typical Wagnerian themes)..it is still an enjoyable, art-house film.

positive

I love this film. Shehzad Khan's portrayal as Bhalla a.k.a. "Shut up, Robert!" was so hilarious. Whenever he got hit during a fight scene, you could hear him squeal. Viju Khote is the dumbfounded Robert a.k.a. "Rabbit". I love that Shakti Kapoor a.k.a. "Crime Master Gogo". Paresh Rawal's double role is so awesomely hilarious for his portrayal as Ramgopal Bajaj & Shyamgopal Bajaj. Raveena Tandon and Karishma Kapoor are out of this world. My brother does a really good mimicry of Bhalla saying. "Relax. PLEASE relax." I love the scene in which Aamir Khan puts a laxative in Salman "Muscles" Khan's food which caused the irregular bowel movements forcing him to use the toilet umpteen number of times.

positive

Its taken a few viewings for me to really wrap myself around this one, but for me Tears of Kali is one of the horror highlights of the 00's and as far as independent horror goes a veritable masterpiece. An anthology horror, it takes on the story of the fictional Taylor-Eriksson Group, a cult of sorts based in India whose members set out in search of ultimate self knowledge and healing of the psyche, with unpleasant results that echo down the years. With bookend segments set in India the film is made chiefly of three stories set in Germany, illustrating the aftermath of the work of the Taylor-Eriksson Group, with some pretty nasty gore at times. Its an interesting set up as these things go, but what sets this film apart is the way the imagery is so carefully set up to develop the films horror. Bad things have been unleashed and the general course of the film is a look at how the quest for self knowledge and ultimate therapy brings horror to patients, healers and others and the film is loaded with smart visual clues to the power of the dark forces with which it deals, dark forces unbound by time, place or even personality. Good examples of this are found in the first story especially, dealing with a journalist interviewing a lady in a mental hospital. Previous to this story we have seen Lars Eriksson and notably his wonky (lazy?) eye, we also see him healing or at least comforting a patient. The lady mental patient of the first story is seen in the same stance as Eriksson healing a fellow patient, also as she wraps up the canvases from the art class that she runs among her fellow patients one of their pictures is seen, a face with lazy eye like Erikssons. There are also references to folk in minuscule roles, extras and walk ons having extra sensory perceptions of what is going on in the film, showing the badness that has been unleashed spreading and able to almost infect others. There is more to the film philosophically than just evil within, it is a film about death, suffering and possible redemption too all bound in a structure derived from Hindu beliefs in a fashion that seems like it might just be exploitation but has more relation to actual beliefs than one might expect (at least from the research that I did on wikipedia). Writer/director Andreas Marschall definitely deserves some significant credit for his skill in constructing the film. As well as being thoughtful, the film is pretty chilling too, the soundtrack of Bharti India and Panama John has a great eerie piano jingle and there are a couple of notable performances, Michael Balaun as a sinister doctor and Cora Chilcot as a freaky patient especially good. The third story also has a fine turn from veteran Mathieu Carrière as a faith healer. The biggest problem of the film is that it is not that involving a lot of the time so potential for fear is lost but these and a couple of other performances achieve involvement pretty well. So, the film isn't quite as gripping as it might be, the acting occasionally off and the pacing too, but mostly I thought it was pretty great, if a shade short of its possible brilliance. Well worth a look for adventurous horror fans I think.

positive

I just cant see what everyone sees in this movie. The acting is just awful, the choice of music is, mildly putting it, peculiar, there arent enough fighting scenes, the plot is non-existent and whatever small entertainment one could get from this film is ruined by the annoying way some of the movie is filmed and gives you a splitting headace.

negative

I had to watch this in school. And to sum it up...<br /><br />Talentless actors, talentless script, and a talentless director.<br /><br />This movie is such a waste of your time. Don't even watch the movie. Don't bother. You will be so disappointed. My teacher said it was supposed to be good. How wrong she was. She even slept through it a little. The movie's actors were just bad. The best actor in there was the old man and that's not saying much. It's has horrible plot with awful characters. So unrealistic and I can honestly said it had no point. The script was unemotional and confusing. There was points in the movie when I furrowed my brows and said, "What?". Also there were just too many loose ties and plot holes. It was just absolutely horrendous.

negative

Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.

negative

Okul"The School" is a result of a new trend in Turkish cinema. Having used the same stories over and over again new generation directors finally come up with different ideas. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are all grand. I think Okul is one of them. It is supposed to be a scary movie but it is not. It is not successful on being scary either. So what is it? Actors are so average especially Deniz Akkaya is pretty annoying with the teacher role. I am sure it could have been better if it was tried on harder. Maybe concentrating on one topic such as making it scary or vice versa. But directors have missed the target this time. ** out of *****

negative

This was very funny, even if it fell apart a little at the end. Does not go overboard with homage after to Hitchcock - Owen (Danny DeVito) was lucky he had "Strangers on A Train" playing at the local cinema, so the movie flat out tells you that that was the inspiration. <br /><br />DeVito is very funny but also a little sad. He has no friends and all he wants to do is write and have someone like his writing. His teacher, Billy Crystal, is going through some serious writers block of his own and his wife has stolen his book and made it her own success, which also has him frustrated a great deal.<br /><br />Best parts are the book proposal by Mr. Pinsky ("One Hundred Girls I'd Like to Pork") and all scenes with Anne Ramsey, who is so horrible that even Mother Theresa would have wanted to kill her, too!

positive

Hello there,<br /><br />This is my first post in IMDb even though I use it as a reference for quite a while. I would therefore like to salute you all. The fact that I am a Greek is inevitably going to affect my judgement I hope not to your annoyance.<br /><br />I spent 2 years of my life, (all we Greeks did actually), analysing Omirus epos (and not Homers as you see everywhere), rhyme by rhyme. If I recall well it was Iliada (Iliad) on 8th grade and Odysseia (Odyssey) on 9th grade. Warner's Troy, was a big disappointment to me and my fellow Greeks around the campus (I study in the UK).<br /><br />Iliad epos is one of the very best literature works ever made. It was composed by a Greek poet Omirus a whole 400 years after the actual war. Historians put Trojan war around 1200 BC, and the actual reason of the war not being Helen's beauty but the strategically crucial position of Troy. That said one may now understand that Omirus epos is not presenting the actual events (as it's not accurate historically) but this was never the purpose of this work. <br /><br />Reading this huge poem, one can find himself wondering for the very definitions of honour, love, anger, hate, heroism, discipline, loyalty and so on. The best part and the most educational as well were these prolonged talks between the warriors before the battle. None of these though were revealed in 'Troy'<br /><br />Warner's Troy was really cheap to my eyes, and to other intellectual people English Finnish and German colleagues of me as well. It is a shame to spend millions of dollars in such a bad scenario. By the way perfect storm was a bad and stupid blockbuster (computers graphics did the whole work), and yet it is Wolfgang Petersen's best work. <br /><br />I conclude saying that you'd better watch something else instead. I would give Troy 2 out of 10. It is a really expensive B movie.<br /><br />Cheers <br /><br />Alex

negative

Mr. Bean is just a bunch of unfunny slapstick humour. It is the most shallow humour TV series ever made in history. The scenes are often disgusting and the horrible canned laughter sends chills through the spine. Mr. bean is a selfish and rude character and one can only sympathies how pathetic he is. It is incredible that such a TV series of low quality can be sustained for 5 years. It is a complete waste of time to watch even 1 episode and one can't help but to express disgust and pity why Rowen had portrayed himself as such a 2-dimensional, unfunny and ridiculous character. Or pity yourself why you had even bother to watch an episode. Watching this is an aggravating experience.

negative

I just saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival. Director Neal Slavin's impressive starring cast includes William Macy (seen in The Contender at last year's TIFF), Meat Loaf (AKA Meat Loaf Aday, AKA Michael Lee Aday), David Paymer, and Laura Dern (also starring in Novocaine, also at this year's Festival).<br /><br />Based on the Arthur Miller novel by the same name, Focus follows Christian but "Jewish-looking" Lawrence Newman (Macy) as he struggles among the hatred and anti-Semitism in his neighbourhood. Pitted between the Jewish store-owner down the street (Paymer) and his card-carrying anti-Semite next door neighbour (Meat Loaf) Newman faces difficulty in dealing with inner conflict and conflict around him. Guilt over knowing what's right but not doing anything battles with wanting to blend in and keep peace with the neighbours. Things gets more complex when he meets and marries Gertrude (Dern) who everyone thinks is Jewish. Gertrude teaches her husband a few things about judging books by covers.<br /><br />Will Newman stick up for the Jewish man in the end or will he flee? Go see it to find out.<br /><br />The acting was fabulous. The writing was incredible. The cinematography was excellent. The sound was well done. Technically amazing, the movie was disturbing. Chilling. Emotionally intense. I found myself bringing my knees up into the fetal position a couple of times. I have great admiration for everyone who worked on it. I have not seen a film this good in a long time. It touched me.<br /><br />Wow.

positive

In the ever growing film genre of comic book adaptations, Blade is by far one of the best realised, and most faithful (overall) to the source material.... given that the character has almost 30 years of history in the comics since his debut as a back up figure in Marvel's Tomb of Dracula, the writer took almost ALL of the characters and plot elements from the comic's history. While changes were inevitably made, the finer points of the film steamroll right over any criticisms. Don't let any of you friends tell you different: Blade is one fine film. If it feels too "comic booky" for you Stanley Kubrick snobs out there, it's because it's supposed to. Deal with it, but don't dis it for it.

positive

This film is about the worst I have seen in a very long time. Terence Stamp's talent is totally wasted and just about the only thing that I enjoyed was hearing a favorite song of mine, "If I Had a Million Dollars" by BNL, in the opening credits.<br /><br />Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, a nice guy who gets roped into house sitting for his boss. Misadventures ensue. Blah blah blah. If you have time to kill and having nothing better to do, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, watch something else.<br /><br />There are not necessarily any redeeming moments, but it is nice to see Molly Shannon and Jeffrey Tambor on the screen. They are always pleasures to watch though this film managed to dampen even these bright spots.

negative

This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!<br /><br />The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting "comedy" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.<br /><br />This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films!

negative

Only in the Hollywood audiovisual fiction world could anybody, including FBI agents, be so unbelievably stupid. The good guys are stupid enough to pick up everything they're interested in, answer phones, go up stairways, all in search for a demolition expert who's out to get everybody. Oh yes, and then we get the Hollywood SUPERVILLAIN. He can be shot, even if he's got a vest on, and then fall down a long flight of steps and then still have the upper hand over his stupid pursuers. Every cliché you can think of in suspense movies were used. I only watched it because Yuki Amami is so HOT. Oh,,,,but yes, it's great to see how morally superior this FBI agent is, when she's pretty certain that there's a bomb in an Opera House, and she doesn't sound the alarm. Who writes these scripts????????????

negative

When I say worse, I mean less entertaining. Todd Sheets seems to have learned some stupid camera tricks since the last Zombie Bloodbath, which makes the movie even less tolerable. In the last movie there were no special camera effects, where in this one, we are treated to shaky cam, and constant switching to black and white. Also, this is called Zombie Bloodbath, despite the fact that the zombies are barely in this one. The movie starts in 1945, where some satanists kill a violent burglar and put him up as a scarecrow. Back in modern time, some kids have a car problem and go to a house, the same house in which the satanist murder happened. Some mean people try to rape the kids (or something), and they bring the scarecrow burglar back to life, who comes back with some zombies and now talks like Darth Vader. Mr. Sheets amped up the language and lessened the violence. If you want to see what a bad movie is, check this out! <br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 96 mins. Not rated, contains violence and language.

negative

I love this movie! When I saw this movie on TV when I was a kid,it scared the hell out of me.Probably because mannequins give me the creeps too.Jocelyn Jones(Molly)is an excellent actress.She uses her facial expressions,especially her eyes,at playing terrified.Chuck Connors is great as Mr.Slausen.I was happy to see him play such a different roll.The other actors in this movie are great too! Tanya Roberts(Becky)and Robin Sherwood(Eileen) are great actresses and I hope to see them in future films,especially Jocelyn Jones! <br /><br />So if you love scary movies but are tired of seeing the same old thing,check this movie out!

positive

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

positive

The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!

negative

Set in Providence, Rhode Island, Feeding the Masses tries to be a satiric look at the role of the media in government. At best, it could be applied to how the US try to control media during the Iraq War, but it ends up feeling hollow. There's never any really tension in the story and the acting never very good. Worst, the direction of the movie is atrocious, focus more on odd camera angles that fail to convey anything beyond "Isn't this an odd way to hold the camera." Special effects are pretty bad...at one point video of an explosion is green screened over the city, and it's laughable at best.<br /><br />The film does have a couple bright spots...namely the advertisements for post-zombie services (including a reclamation service and a party bus). But it's far too little to make the film worthwhile.<br /><br />For a better zombie film, try Hide and Creep. It has the same weak production value, but there's much more wit, humor and talent behind it.

negative

I loved this masterpiece and quite frankly I, too found Mary Poppins (although I love Julie Andrews and Dick VanDyke) to be silly and sacrine-sweet. Angela Lansbury plays her character to perfection and I don't know why people think of this film as distorted. It was magical and it was lots of fun to watch. Every scene held a certain charm as you got to know the characters better. You truly see how this little thrown together family learn to bond with each other, despite their age and differences. I thought the characters were well developed, especially Charles who was at "The Age of not Believing". Mary Poppins may be more popular and cherished by others but this little gem will be the one that I will always love and cherish.

positive

This is actually a trilogy of 3 of Somerset Maugham's short tales. The first one is The Verger, which is about 15 minutes long and very enjoyable. After 17 years Albert Foreman is laid off from his church job because he can't read nor write. So what does he do? Opens a tobacco shop, of course!<br /><br />The second is Mr. Know-All which was actually a story I had read for school 6 years ago and instantly forgotten, until I heard the familiar introduction. Another 15 minute one, and also very good. It worked better on film than in a book for me, but then perhaps that's because I was only 14 the last time, afterall.<br /><br />The 3rd one is nearly a let-down. Almost an hour in length, it simply drags. It's not all that bad, but not as quick and snappy as the last 2. I watched the first quarter hour of it and then skipped forward to the last quarter hour, and found that it still made sense and really I hadn't missed a thing!<br /><br />Overall I give them 8, 9, and 6 out of 10, respectively.

positive

Loved this movie!! Great acting by Carla Gugino. Interesting story about a kidnapping that goes horribly wrong (don't they all?). Some surprising twists and turns in the film and the plot was easy to follow without being so convoluted as to be totally incomprehensible. It was a totally unexpected delight. More "Quentin-ish" than most films try to be.

positive

Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique. <br /><br />Arguably one of the pioneering "suspense thrillers", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.<br /><br />But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of "swapping murders" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of "darkness in humanity's heart", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable. <br /><br />The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the "Id", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing. <br /><br />Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply "the director's daughter" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics. <br /><br />All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience! <br /><br />-9/10

positive

OK, it was a "risky" move to rent this flick, but I thought I had nothing to lose.Well, I was wrong. This is, next to "Bloodsurf", the worst "horrormovie" I have ever seen. Crappy actors, crappy technical output, crappy story and so on. The soundtrack though, isn't to bad. That is why I give it a 2 on the vote and not just a 1. And of course the cats are a positive surprise. By far the superior actors in this movie..... Do not rent or buy it. Stay away from it and hope that this horrible, horrible film will vanish to some obscure existence and not become a "cult classic". It most definitely do not deserve any recognition.

negative

Two years after this movie was made, "The Juror" came out. Don't waste your time on this one. See "The Juror" instead. "The Juror" is essentially the same story as "Trial By Jury," with better acting, better directing and a far more gripping aura about it. William Hurt was not believable as a cop-gone-bad, and Armand Assante couldn't be more unlike a mob boss if they had dressed him in a clown outfit. You didn't become involved enough with Joann Whalley's character to be that upset by what was happening to her. Also, the way in which she interacted with the jury wasn't compelling or interesting in any way. Kathleen Quinlan's role as a hooker/killer wasn't fleshed out enough and quite frankly was unnecessary for to the plot.

negative

I just watched it for the second time today and I must say with all my heart it is about damn time they made a movie about us as people not as spiritual beings. Such a waste of human life as this story was maybe some good will come out of it. And Eric is hotter than ever. To often in the movies First Nations people are seen as other than everyday people. We are always portrayed as chiefs or medicine people. Hey we are just like everyone else. And this movie showed just that. We hurt when an injustice is done and we can win in quest for justice. It is really to bad that the big movie companies cant see that. I cant wait till this comes out on DVD. Thanks to those who chose to show this story as it really was.

positive

this, is NOT one of those films it is one of the biggest pieces of tripe I have ever scene, the camera work is trying to be flashy but it really just crap the whole thing looks like the red shoe diaries, but without the sex, the only reason I bought this was I wanted to try out dvd and this was the cheapest one I could find, possibly the worst buy of my life and could have put you off dvd forever, the soundtrack is REALLY tacky and most of the movie is made up of endless repeats of clips from the first two films, why anyone would want to make a movie as awful as this is beyond me, if they had really attempted to make an original movie and failed I would be nicer in this review but they don't they just got the rights to reproduce stuff from the first two and then edit it and repeat it into this film with about maybe under 1 3rd original footage which is about up to the standards of film school students, DO NOT buy this movie. the only entertainment this dvd can offer is if you were to stick it in the microwave and watch the flashing lights! UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTTER unbelievable GARBAGE! 0/10 if only the voting system would allow that.

negative

This movie is about sexual obsession. Bette Davis plays Mildred. This is a woman who men are drawn to. Not because she is a nice beautiful girl but because she is a sexual entity. Now the movie does not come out and say that but it is obvious. There is a scene in the movie in which men are all going googly eyes over her. She works as a waitress in a coffee shop, she can't read and she not really anybody to look at but she is a flirt. It is obvious the male customers in that coffee shop are there because of her. One day Phillip a club footed failed painter medical student comes in the shop to say a good word for his friend but he becomes besotted the moment he sees her. He starts buying her things even pays for her apartment. Meanwhile she is seeing other people and she makes no secrets of it. He dreams about her like she is a angel, but she is no angel. He is constantly thinking about her. His med school grades are even failing. So what the nookie is too good. He wants to marry her but she rejects him because she is marrying another guy. She always lets Phil know she really doesn't have love feelings for him all of time. He is heart broken but he meets another woman. They seem fine but it is obvious he is still dreaming of the Bimbo. Mildred does comes back with a baby and unwed. Phillip takes her in again, but she starts going out with a friend of his, the light bulb comes on a little and he kicks her out. She does what she knows works so she tries to seduce him, well it doesn't work and she proceeds to burn his tuition money up. Oh we have a club foot that he has problems about, even though a street teenager who has the same problem tells him to lighten up about it. He meets another girl named Sally we have a March of time montage which shows her aging while he strings her along still waiting for Mildred. Well he has no school tuition, can't find a job. Finally Sally and her dad takes him in. Not before another March of Time montage showing him going downhill. Soon his uncle who raised him dies and he gets money to become a doctor. Meanwhile he finds Mildred needs him again. She has TB. meanwhile he is still leading Sally down the Primrose path about marriage and he takes a job on a steamship. Finally the bimbo dies and Phillip declares he is free now and he will marry Sally. I wished she told him to stuff it. Now I know my take on the characters are not going to get me any points. But I feel Phillip was the bad guy. Yes Mildred is a Strumpet BUT he knows it, and he keeps coming back. Mean while he has two other girlfriends who love him but he treats as appetizers. I guess the sex wasn't as good. But in any case he dogs those women waiting for Mildred. Not only that but the man who gets Mildred pregnant is already married and when Philip asks him what he intends to do about Baby ( apparently the baby's name) he laughs is off, he has no intention in supporting her and Baby and he is wealthy. Sally's father who has 9 children say some pretty nasty things about women but he is said to be a old traditionalist. Philip doesn't seem to refute his feelings either. Men are using Mildred as a Boy Toy but the men in this movie come out as unscathed. Yes she was not a respectable woman but far from a villain. To me it is Philip who was had the real problem and it was his sexual obsession for Mildred.

positive

...but I would be lying. A relative was a crew member, and we got to go watch the production of this movie for a couple of days (and I was an extra). I get to die and have a second of screen time, not that I plan on moving to Hollywood anytime soon. I just thought it was awesome to see how movies are made and be a part of it. Plus, I got a copy of the movie once it was finally released. They didn't have a studio backing when making this film so it truly was independent. Why the writing and acting is so awful is beyond me, but the main character "Cherry" is the director's sister so that could be part of it. But the cinematography was good. :)

negative

I have been known to fall asleep during films, but this is usually due to a combination of things including, really tired, being warm and comfortable on the sette and having just eaten a lot. However on this occasion I fell asleep because the film was rubbish. The plot development was constant. Constantly slow and boring. Things seemed to happen, but with no explanation of what was causing them or why. I admit, I may have missed part of the film, but i watched the majority of it and everything just seemed to happen of its own accord without any real concern for anything else. I cant recommend this film at all.

negative

I really wish Hollywood would come up with some new ideas and quick. Instead they go around and recreate and mess up a perfectly good movie with a re-make. This movie is awful from the DeMille version. All the way through this movie I was saying to myself, Huh??? - What???? - I don't remember that part. The only exciting thing in this movie so far was the parting of the Red Sea. And in Heston's version - it was a heck of a lot better than this version. Did anyone else see an atomic or nuclear bomb cloud fade in and out when the Red Sea was being parted? I think I did. Anyway, I Might - Might - watch the last part tonight.<br /><br />I wish Hollywood would tackle different ideas and subject matters when they are making new movies. Instead of re-hashing old films.<br /><br />They should of left well enough alone.<br /><br />UPDATE:<br /><br />Well I watched the last part. Did Moses make up the second copy of the ten commandments with his own hand - or was I seeing things - please someone - email me and let me know. HORRIBLE

negative

This is a low budget Roger Corman horror/creature flick. A DinoCroc is created when manipulation of prehistoric genes runs amok. An engineered croc first kills one of its own then gets the taste of human and becomes a fast growing terror after escaping. None of the characters have any depth, but then they are not the focal point. We only get a few glimpses of the huge two-legged dinosaur descendant and some of the best "kill" scenes in a small budget film.<br /><br />My favorite scene is of a moronic character trying to use a three legged dog for bait and becomes croc food himself. Nothing left on the pier but ankle top feet. With no real stand out roles: Jane Longendecker, Bruce Weitz and Charles Napier. Most pathetic is Matt Borlenghi and an obnoxious professional croc hunter Costas Mandylor. I was most impressed with the alluring Joanna Pacula as the respectfully feared Dr. P. DINOCROC is redeeming as a crock of pickles.

negative

Usually, I start my reviews with an explanation of how and why I watched the film I'm reviewing. With this, I simply cannot explain. I needed to be awake early for work the next day so the last thing I wanted to do was watch a film that I didn't know anything about. But something kept me glued to my comfy futon as I watched this Heather Graham vehicle. Oh, that's right. Boredom.<br /><br />Graham plays Joline, a bohemian nut-case who seems more obsessed with her marriage vows than the guy she married (played by Luke Wilson). When her hubby decides to set off in search of better things (work, women and scripts, presumably), Joline begins a fanatical quest to find her husband and free him from his "spiritual wheelchair". It sounds like I'm making this up but sadly, I'm not. In reality, this is little more than an acting exercise for Graham as she gamely gives this Phoebe-from-Friends role a work-out. Oh and Goran "ER" Visnjic is in there as well, for some reason.<br /><br />The TV schedules had this down as a comedy but I failed to find a single laugh anywhere. It struck me that this was a personal journey for Lisa Krueger (the director and writer), in the same mould as "Girl, Interrupted" but even that had more laughs than this. Graham's character is simply too self-centred for the audience to care about and I felt sorry for the hen-pecked husband as he bravely fought for his freedom from his clearly mental wife. Very little of this film made sense as characters simply appeared in the story as though they were standing around, waiting for Graham to turn up like the extras in "The Truman Show". In fact, the only positive note I can produce from my scribblings was "Heather Graham - nice baps". And that wasn't because I was too tired to enjoy the film.<br /><br />In truth, it's very difficult to think of anybody to recommend this film to. Graham purists (a VERY small number of overall movie-goers, I think you'll agree) will have to be committed to watch this dross and possibly hippy students who collect American Indian dream-catchers will take something from this. I was amazed that the average rating (at time of writing) was 5.0 - that would make this film as good as "Die Another Day" and "Gothika" in my book and that simply ain't right. "Committed" is a quirky oddball mess of a movie that neither entertains or enlightens. It's complicated, pointless and simply too boring for my tastes and probably yours too. Don't even think about watching this.

negative

Before I continue forth with the new millennium, I will go back in time once more because I had completely forgotten about these gems!!!!!<br /><br />In 1987, Disney, while still a "low" company in the 80s, was able to start a series of films on television called "Not Quite Human," about a geeky teenager who, like in "Inspector Gadget," looks like a human but is really a robot!!!!! Now this SCREAMS 80S, along with other films like "Tron" and "Honey, I Shrunk The Kids" because it combines everything of yesteryear with the technologies of tomorrow!!!!!<br /><br />My parents remember seeing this on the TV back then, back when I was just born or something. However, my very first encounter with this film was on the Old Disney Channel (one time, I've seen this, and the other parts, on my 12th B'day in May of '99!!!!!)<br /><br />"Not Quite Human" is a very good series of films to watch, if you can ever find these movies again. <br /><br />Has this been shown recently? If so, give me an e-mail or personal message.<br /><br />10/10

positive

Brown returned to his role from the year before (in "Slaughter") for this rough follow-up film. In the original, he had avenged his parents' slaying by wiping out a huge mob organization in Mexico. Here, he is the one being pursued (retaliated against) by a money launderer portrayed by McMahon. When the first assassination attempt fails, Brown is back in action once more, kicking gangster butt all over the place while trying to protect his new girlfriend Hendry. While the original film was, overall, a better and more coherent movie, this one delivers all the exploitation aspects in far heavier doses, making it more pleasing to fans of the genre. Aside from a fairly dreary opening on horseback and a downright deadly car ride down a city street at night, this movie clips along at a very brisk pace. Every few minutes there appears one or more of the following: drug use, sex, nudity, gunplay, murder or some other action. Brown is his usual reliable, amiable self, helped by his amazing physical presence which goes a long way in glossing over any stiffness in his acting. McMahon is a riot! With tinted glasses and his hair parted down the middle (!), he is shown meting out orders to his gang of thugs and is overheard making passionate love to his fur-clad bimbo. Seeing Johnny Carson's sidekick in a role like this is a perverse thrill. Stroud makes an impression as an intense, racially-bigoted hit-man while Peters adds just a tinge of class as an upright police detective who enlists Brown's aid. Sadly, no mention at all is made of Brown's original sidekicks Don Gordon and Stella Stevens. Suddenly, Brown now has a girlfriend (Hendry) who is likable enough, but lacking in the voluptuousness and personality that Stevens had before. Williams does an outrageous turn as a pimp who can seemingly pick any girl out of a bar and make her an instant member of his harem. The cinematography and overall direction is less polished than the first film, but this one does have a drive and a sense of danger that exceeds the original's feel. The film spends a lot of time in the sewage of organized crime, drugs, prostitution and other vices, but it retains interest through the creativity of its action scenes and the now-startling lack of political correctness. One odd note: A key supporting player in the first film was shown getting shot to death, but pops up here in a different role.

positive

This movie was well done in all respects. The acting is superb along with the fine audio soundtrack which I purchased because it was so moving. It is my all time favorite movie ahead of eastwoods "white hunter,black heart". This movie is simply the best.<br /><br />cheers Zuf

positive

I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project

negative

This movie was awesome, if you want a movie with non-stop puns and laughter then this is right for you. This movie was great because it took the serious Robin Hood and made it something the whole family can enjoy and get a good laugh at. I first viewed this movie when i was around 10, and got most of it. This movie is also great because it makes fun of everything involved, "By order of the kings financial secretary H and R Blockhead?"<br /><br />Everyone needs a little Cary Elwes(Robin Hood)in life, whether or not its Liar Liar with the "Claw" or Saw. <br /><br />This movie is worth watching

positive

It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?<br /><br />I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.<br /><br />I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a "sit back with a few beers" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of "American Ninja" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.<br /><br />In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called "White Phantom" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.<br /><br />So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours!

positive

After watching this film, I thought to myself, they really glossed up Errol Flynn's life! The movie is really nice eye candy. They really got the 1930s and 1940s atmosphere of Hollywood just right. The costumes were great. All the women looked glamorous and all the men looked handsome and debonair.<br /><br />Is this a serious film about Errol Flynn's life? Nah! It's a fun movie based on all the scandalous stuff he did in his life.<br /><br />Why am I critiquing this film? This is a film that had a lot of promise but failed to deliver. Duncan Reagher was really good as Errol Flynn. He was not as good looking as the original, but he made you believe that Flynn was not just a handsome playboy who did not take himself seriously, but as a man who, although gifted with great talent, was kind of disturbed and unhappy inside. Flynn's love life was a disaster considering he had so many failed marriages. He also lost a lot of good friends during his life. He also suffered from unrequited love for the elegant Olivia DeHavilland. The last scene of the film showed Errol kind of begging for Olivia to stay with him and instead she walks away. He is shown in his tux, looking really empty and slowly walking around the pool as he pours his drink into the pool. It was a sad way to end the film but kind of fitting because everyone knows by now how he eventually fell apart from his alcoholism and his dissipated lifestyle.<br /><br />This film could've had much more depth, could've been better well-written. Sure they showed all the scandals but they never showed Errol Flynn's human center. Surprisingly, Duncan Reagher was able to put some emotional depth into the character of Errol Flynn even though the film writing didn't put any depth there.<br /><br />I'll probably never see this film again but I can still remember after viewing this film, "Gosh, this could've been so much more.....!" I give this film a D+.

negative

Johnny and Jeremy are vampires of sorts. Minus the fangs, of course. They're dark, bitter creatures with nothing better to do than to spread their own misery. Through their charms (namely a sharp tongue and a fat wallet, respectively) they seduce desperate souls, who they proceed to torment and victimize. That's more or less the basis of this black comedy, as I understand it.<br /><br />It's not a blend of black humor that I can easily subscribe to, partly because it bothers me to imagine the audience rooting for the sleazy, main character. I did enjoy, however, the sound and the melody of the rapid-fire (and supposedly very witty) remarks. I was very impressed by the cast's strong acting, particularly David Thelis's; only the character of Jeremy seemed too bi-dimensional. The photography and the music, both dramatic and somber, work very well together. <br /><br />What really turns me off about "Naked" (and the main reason I'd never recommend it to anyone) is the way it repeatedly seems to present misogyny as a valid way to vent one's angst. In other words, in a world that sucks so bad, what difference does it make if one inflicts some pain on girls, right? To suggest (as some have on this website) that Johnny is not so unkind a person because he's not as rough on girls as Jeremy, seems completely absurd to me. They're both terrible, nasty people. And they're particularly keen on hurting women every single time they get a chance. One could argue that Johnny eventually gets what he deserves, as if his bad karma suddenly swung straight back and bit him in the ass. But still, his and Jeremy's sadistic behavior are treated to a certain degree as a laughing matter. And I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most people who absolutely love this movie also find that aspect of the film darkly comical.

negative

Swift's socialism and pacifism come through against all odds in this well done remake. (Did you know there is no hyphen after "well"? Fact.) He meets warlike miniatures, socialist giants, head-in-the-clouds (literally) philosophers, and pacifist horses who rule over Yahoos -- nearly neanderthal humanoids. (Is that where "yahoo" came from?) We also meet the dastardly Dr. Bates, the devoted Mary Gulliver, the sweet and devoted son Thomas, and the full cast of a truly horrific 19th century lunatic asylum. Suspension of disbelief comes easily, and our 7- and 12-year-old girls enjoyed it as much as my husband and I did. (Sorry for the length, IMDb requires 10 lines.)

positive

Now, the sci-fi channel original company has made some pretty crappy films (House of the dead 2, All souls day, etc.) but when you leave the job entirely to horror master actor/writer and now director, Bruce Campbell, you get one of the best damn made for TV independent horror films ever made! I normally hate these movies, in my previous review, House of the dead 2, I could not believe how horrible the film was! But somehow I took a liking for this film, a very good liking for this film. The violence is good and so is the black comedy in the film and I recommend you get it, a true Bruce Campbell masterpiece! Well, since there is only a few more lines left I can say whatever I want about this movie: IJAJKASIF JHJDJ NXD FNEHSD FHNCFNFVHS DJKEALJWSNS.UHHD SISHSNHF AHCNAKDJH HNDCHJNDNH JACND HCHJNNHW JHJ NASHDNFHCKA FHNKHAD SAKASDADJ FJKDFA

positive

EXCUSE ME!!! HellOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CUBA GOODING,Jr. Should Have Won An Oscar For His Portrayal In This Film!!! He WAS the film! While the film may be lacking in some areas, Cuba was awesome... and for me, this is the best role that he has ever played! The scene in the movie where he finds out that his mother has died made me break down and cry IN THE THEATER!! I guess I could really relate to this film because I saw the same treatment of people just like that at my own school growing up... what a tragedy! Getting to see the "real" Radio and coach at the end of the movie was really special too! If you can watch this movie and not be moved to tears, you need a heart check! If you liked "Simon Birch" and "The Mighty", you'll love "Radio" too! I wish they made more movies like this...Radio is the Real Deal!

positive

I watched this mini in the early eighties. Sam Waterson proved himself to be a great actor. In fact when he began Law and Order I was disappointed in him as it was not as powerful a role. Unfortunately the good roles do not pay the bills. I wish I could find a copy of this rare series and review it. It is both factual and entertaining. Everyone should see it to know what really happened. I was so moved I purchased and read the book "Pppenheimer-Shatterer of Worlds". And saw how this man became an unlikely hero who was never rewarded for his insight. If you get a chance be sure to watch this movie and see what a performance Mr. Waterston can really provide an audience. Enjoy the movies!

positive

Seriously! You've just got to see this movie to understand everything that is wrong with it. It came out during the time period where everybody was trying to make family movies that everyone could enjoy (The little rascals; Mr. Nanny, etc.) yet it lacked any charisma or enthusiasm. Every single character in the movie is driven by rage, with the exception of Trixie's mother, who shows only aggravation and weariness, possibly at the tired cliché's this movie enjoys. <br /><br />To put it simply, the biggest flaw in the film was not the acting, nor the filming, but most notably the writing. The lines we receive are reminiscent of Disney classics, although this film lacks the whole-heartedness IL' Walt managed to pull off. Junior's Dad, (John Ritter) makes you mad without even doing anything, simply because he allows Junior to run around unsupervised, and only gives him a stern warning when he tapes a 200-pound behemoth to a chalk board. <br /><br />Also, Junior's grandfather is particularly excruciating. For those of you who saw the first one, found it nauseating, and thus, did not see the second one, "Big Ben Healy" as he is referred to in this movie, is still a total douche. He basically barges into John Ritter's house uninvited, settles himself in Junior's room, even though he says that he hates Junior, and basically does nothing to accelerate the film's speed, or to support the film in any way. Rather, he ticks off the audience by being a lazy free loader.<br /><br />Finally, we are introduced to a wide variety of new characters, such as the smug, obnoxious, Trixie, who carries dynamite in her backpack, which she first lights, then hands, to Junior, who simply stares wide eyed at. Also, Gilbert Gottfried returns in this film, this time playing the obnoxious principal at Junior's new elementary school. If Gilbert Gottfried ain't enough to get the point across, I will put it simply: This film reeks!<br /><br />2/10 stars, because the actor's convictions shine through the film, even though the script sucks.

negative

Hitchcock would be proud of this movie. Even when nothing happens, it is suspenseful. Director David Lynch overuses a few cheap thrill tricks here and there, but he intersperses them with other cinematographic techniques to keep it from becoming obtuse.<br /><br />Altogether surreal, this movie is like waking up and remembering most of a dream but not enough to make it sensible. I am still trying to figure it all out and will probably have to see it again to catch things I missed and which may help me understand it better. It is a very detailed plot that very slowly comes together, so you must be patient and pay attention. Get your bathroom trip out of the way before it starts. And yet, the plot is overshadowed by the theme, the mood, the character development, and the filming techniques.<br /><br />The dual roles of the main actress, Naomi Watts, showcase her enormous talent. That is, when I could get my eyes off of her co-star. What an acting pair.<br /><br />Lynch surprises throughout the movie with unusual camera angles, the length/timing of editing cuts, jumping back and forth between scenes. Combined with smart use of music and sounds, it all helps to build suspense in our minds, doubtless a major objective of the director. Well, he kept me on the edge of my seat, even had me talking to the actors to be careful here, and not be so naive there. You know, the kind of stuff you want to smack your kids for doing at the movies.

positive

I was really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.<br /><br />A good movie has the audience identifying/empathising/sympathising with the main actor. Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.<br /><br />The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should/could have done.<br /><br />Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part. Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.<br /><br />Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films. Maybe the change of director/ supposedly hard to work with main actor has biased my opinion.<br /><br />Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses for a movie which could have been great.<br /><br />A lot of maybes which still does not explain why this movie just lacked anything special.<br /><br />It could have been great, it wasn't.

negative

Pepe le Moko, played by Charles Boyer, is some sort of international criminal mastermind wanted in countries throughout Europe, and to stay free he holes himself up in the Casbah, a mysterious part of Algiers where even the police are reluctant to go, until a senior officer is sent from Paris to capture le Moko once and for all. For le Moko, although the Casbah allows him to remain out of police custody, it also becomes a sort of prison at the same time - a place he can't leave, because the moment he does, he knows he'll be arrested.<br /><br />Boyer's performance was good, and I can understand why he was nominated for an Oscar. He captures the essence of such a character - a perfect combination of very dangerous and yet very classy at the same time. The movie itself, unfortunately, was quite a letdown. A number of parts of the story seemed inconsistent, of which I'll mention two. First was the idea that the police wouldn't enter the Casbah. That was stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the film by the local commander, and yet repeated references in the movie suggest that in fact the police did enter the Casbah fairly regularly. So, neither the suggestion by Commissioner Janvier that the police wouldn't enter, nor the statement by Inspector Slimane (also a decent performance by Joseph Calleia) that they could get into the Casbah but not out seemed to make much sense. I also found it difficult to believe that le Moko - hardened criminal mastermind that he was - could be so quickly swept off his feet by Gaby (Hedy Lamarr) to the point where he entertains the local populace by singing love songs and then leaves the Casbah to find her, essentially giving himself up. I understand the irony of the final few scenes, of course, as Pepe leaves the freedom of his prison (the Casbah) only to find real freedom in his capture (because he's shot and killed by the police.) I just found it impossible to believe that someone like le Moko would fall into such a trap.<br /><br />This is worth watching for Boyer, and to a lesser extent Calleia, but the story is disappointing and inconsistent. 3/10

negative

I scooped up this title by accident with the Grindhouse Vol. 1 collection of pure Euro-trash movies. But this movie has a nice stamp of approval and should deserve a better transfer than what is out there. Stupednous it is not... satisfying it is! Watching this movie I couldn't help to wonder... how come Sergio Martino didn't make this flick? This has his signature all over it and punctuated by Edwedge Fenech (alas not as well known as she should be but she did get a nice cameo in Hostel II). Double-crosses and triple-crosses underly and cement this film from beginning to end with Lee Van Cleef oozing coolness under pressure from the 1st second. Did this guy have to go to Italy to finally reach his potential or did the studio system let this guy slip through? Besides Lee's more recognizable films, film-goers should try this on for size and see how if Sergio Leone would've lowered his epic scale down on Once Upon a Time in America to half the running time (and 1/4 of the budget) this is what it would've turned out to be like. So refreshing, it should be taken in during the day at home and make it for an couch matinée

positive

Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J. Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen.<br /><br />Director/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations. D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his "biggest" career achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT.

positive

The funny sound that you may hear when you eyeball this execrable version of Jules Verne's classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is Verne spinning in his grave. The only thing about this 80 minute opus that has anything to do with "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is the title. Otherwise, everything else in this lackluster production is new and not worth watching. In fact, the director has written here at IMDb.COM that he directed only eight minutes of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and the studio tacked on part of "Dollman" helmer Albert Pyun's sequel to his own "Alien from L.A." with Kathy Ireland. Evidently, the producers ran out of money and to satisfy overseas contractual obligations, they grafted Pyun's sequel onto director Rusty Lemorande's movie. Please, don't rent or buy this wretched piece of garbage.<br /><br />Unlike director Henry Levin's period piece "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (1959) with James Mason and Pat Boone, Lemorande's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" takes place in contemporary times in Hawaii. Two fellows, a British nanny, and a dog are brought together for the adventure of a lifetime purely by coincidence. Richard (Paul Carafotes of "Blind Date") and his comic book obsessed brother Bryan (Ilan Mitchell-Smith of "Weird Science") are going out to explore a cave. The heroine, Crystina (Nicola Cowper of "Underworld"), works for a domestic service called 'Nannies R Us.' Being a nanny has been Crystina's life-long dream, but she has made a less of all five of her nanny jobs. Nevertheless, her sympathetic supervisor, Ms. Ferry (Lynda Marshall of "Africa Express"), sends her to Hawaii. Crystina's new client, rock star Billy Foul (Jeremy Crutchley of "Doomsday") who is scheduling one last concert to revive his flagging career, has a dog named Bernard. Foul wants Crystina to take Bernard to a doggie day spa. Crystina is waiting on the arrival of her taxi when a careless motel attendant accidentally puts the basket that conceals Bernard in Richard's jeep. You see, Foul has hidden his canine in a basket because motel management strictly prohibits pets on their premises. Foul has disguised the dog as a human baby. Anyway, Crystina catches a cab and tells the driver follow Richard.<br /><br />After she catches up with them to get her dog, the cabbie cruises away and abandons her. Crystina demands that Richard drive her back to town, but he has other plans. Unhappily, Crystina joins the guys and they get lost, and then find themselves in the lost city of Atlantis, a police state ruled by a dictator, at the center of the Earth. The rulers of Atlantis repeatedly notify their citizens that life on the surface does not exist. Our heroes and heroine stumble onto Atlantis quite by accident. Atlantis resembles a disco and everybody looks like they are straight out of a punk rock opera. The ruler of Atlantis, General Rykov (Janet Du Plessis of "Operation Hit Squad"), is orchestrating a raid on the surface with clones of the first human, Wanda Saknussemm (Kathy Ireland of "Necessary Roughness"), to visit Atlantis. Predictably, General Rykov machinations to rule Atlantis and overthrow the Earth fails, and our heroes and heroine save the day.<br /><br />"Journey to the Center of the Earth" is an abomination. The movie seems to be a comedy despite its superficial satire about dictatorships. Albert Pyun is one of my favorite low budget action directors, but he blew it on this lightweight shambles of a science fiction saga.

negative

King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm) of Romania is a vampire, but a vampire of light who wants nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with mankind. But his son, Radu (Anders Hove), is a cruel creature to his very heart (which is pretty obvious as soon as you see him). Three female students have come to study local folklore, but find themselves drawn into the vampires legends at just the wrong time: Vladislav has been killed.<br /><br />Who can say anything bad about a film featuring a cameo from Angus Scrimm? I can't. I mean, I had some low expectations after seeing other Full Moon pictures ("Puppet Master" in particular, and "Demonic Toys"). But despite the really bad animated effects of the demons, this film was actually really well done and very fun to watch. Plenty of blood, a good plot and backstory (the Bloodstone story was surprisingly refreshing) and even some new angles on the vampire mythos, which you'd think would be dead by now. (Maybe I'm wrong, but this is probably the first film to feature rosary beads being fired from a gun.) Aside from vampires and blood, you get a share of nudity (gratuitous, but welcome) and I had to notice the excellent score from the composers (not sure who deserves credit, but those involved include Stuart Brotman, Richard Kosinski, William Levine, Michael Portis and John Zeretzka). This is Horror 101 all the way. Heck, you even get two sequels, which is the sign of a true horror film. (Of course, some bad films get sequels, too -- did I mention "Puppet Master"?) The Romanian theme was well-done, and the film even seems to have been made by Romanians if I am guessing their name origins correctly. And the score -- the music -- really stood out for me as a nice change of pace, very mood-setting. I like Richard Band, but I'm glad another composer was given a shot because he nailed the atmosphere on the head. If you like vampire films and want a slight variation (one of the Eastern European variety), this is worth seeing.

positive

Before I start, I need to inform you that I love horror films with a passion. LOVE THEM! I have seen thousands and rarely does one come along that I do not like. I am very forgiving of the horror genre. One of the greatest lines in movie history is in the film "Ed Wood" where Ed Wood (Johnny Depp) freaks out and yells at the overly critical producers after they comment on "Plan 9's" cheap sets and continuity problems, "You don't know anything! Haven't you ever heard of 'suspension of disbelief?!'" Well, I try to bring that "suspension of disbelief" philosophy with me to every horror film I see and it usually works. Unfortunately, it didn't work for me during the screening of Cheerleader Massacre.<br /><br />Strike One:<br /><br />The first thing you'll notice about this "film" is that it is shot on video and has that crummy hand-held-home-digital-camera style. The camera work and quality are so bad it makes daytime soaps look breathtaking in comparison. In fact, it makes Troma and Full Moon video releases look good. And, that's bad.<br /><br />Strike Two:<br /><br />Jim Wynorski. This "filmmaker" probably fancies himself a chip off the ol' Corman, but nothing could be further from the truth. Roger Corman shot fast, furious and under budget, but was able to deliver a tight original film. Though Wynorski delivers a cheap film, he cheats his viewers (and perhaps other artists) as he steals entire pieces of James Horner's "Humanoids From The Deep" and "Battle Beyond The Stars" musical scores and inappropriately drops them into Cheerleader Massacre. On the back of the box art and during the beginning credits the music score is falsely attributed to, Dan Savio (an extra in Wynorski's "Deathstalker II"). You will also notice how Cheerleader Massacre jumps from video to film and back again as Wynorski lifts entire scenes from both "Slumber Party Massacre" and "Humanoids From the Deep." Wynorski utilized this deception, fourteen years earlier, in his horrible version of "Not of This Earth."<br /><br />Strike Three (you're out):<br /><br />While Cheerleader Massacre does have some nudity, (40-year-olds playing teenagers and the grossest set of fake breasts that I have ever seen in a horror film, ugh), the murders are relatively bloodless. What the heck is that all about? The film is titled, Cheerleader Massacre, but a handful of off-screen killings, in my opinion, does not add up to a massacre. It doesn't even add up to a bad mosquito bite.<br /><br />The "film's" story is fair enough - unseen killer stalks a vanload of cheerleaders (old gals playing teens) until the van runs out of gas and the "girls" are forced to hold up in secluded two-story mountain home. I won't ruin the ending for you but this is one of those "films" where the person who is obviously the killer is not obviously the killer. Cheerleader Massacre would have been great if it were shot on film, directed by Joseph Zito and had special effects by Tom Savini. Instead it is an effect-less, shot-on-video travesty by Jim Wynorski. Ouch.<br /><br />I beg of you, please don't buy or rent this abomination. If we keep supporting these clowns, the more of this talentless video garbage they'll produce. Go out and rent "The Prowler", "The Last House on Dead End Street", "Delirium" or "The Burning" instead. You'll be glad you did.

negative

Lubitsch's last production but not his least interesting film. Somehow largely ignored by critics as he couldn't finish it himself and as the movie wasn't co-signed by Preminger who he did most of the staging... A very strange mix of musical (a remembrance of The Merry Widow ?)and classic Lubitsch touch sentimentalism (an impossible love-story like Cluny Brown)yet a very clever and intelligent one yet not to be understood as some nostalgia of some lost world but rather a testament on eternal feelings prevailing on the foolishness of mankind and especially men in times of war with a "moral" lesson still true today as it was in 1948. Billy wilder as an answer to Preminger who grieved at Lubitsch's funerals about having lost a great man replied that we still had his films and that sums it all up about that Lady in Ermine...

positive

if my grandma did films they would probably do much better figure than this one... incredible bad... the main characters (the mom, the dad and son) are OK. Specially the mother she's a nice actress and the kid also proves to be a nice one specially on the scenes where he is supposed to be scary. But does the the director know the meaning of the words Plot Point, Triller and Good Script. the script hasn't any evolving atmosphere to become a suspense thing. If you like being chased by trees you can probably enjoy it, otherwise just stay at home and sleep. oh... actually there was something funny: the movie's from 2001 but we couldn't realize it since the image is so bad (like on mini-dv) and the cars are so old (like 70 and 80's).

negative

What was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of SH"), but this version of "The Sign of Four" feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of "Murder, She Wrote" (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.<br /><br />Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clichés: not only we get the infamous catchphrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.<br /><br />Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!<br /><br />3/10. Travesty.

negative

To those who have not followed the Anne Marie Fahey Murder case. You are missing out one of the saddest yet complicated murder of all. The murderer is popular Delaware attorney, Tom Capano and the victim is the Delaware Governor's Scheduling Secretary, Anne Marie Fahey. Their relationship was a well-kept secret until her disappearance and murder. She wanted to leave him but he just wouldn't let her go so easily. On the other hand, he had a mistress and a wife and four daughters. Where did he find the time to have two mistresses and a domestic family life? Besides, the case is extremely complicated and fascinating for a four hour mini series. While the actress who plays Ms. Fahey does a fine job, she does not have her dark long hair. His other mistress is definitely more attractive than the actual woman. Mark Harmon is better looking and does an Emmy award winning performance as Tom Capano. It would be better with actual Delaware and Philadelphia locations. With Ann Rule's executive producing, she adds accuracy to Anne Marie's characteristic of organization and her personal battle with an eating disorder. These bits of information might be overlooked by any other executive producer or director. If you have not read the book, it is well worth it. Ann Rule is a fascinating storyteller of true crime. It is ironic that Mark Harmon plays Tom Capano. He also played Ann Rule's former friend and subject, Ted Bundy in an another book adaptation many years ago. He was brilliant then and now. He does an above average job with an amazing story. Even President CLinton offered his assistance in the Anne Marie Fahey case. And now, the former Governor Tom Carper is now the United States Senator for Delaware who defeated longtime, popular incumbent Senator Richard Roth in the November 2000 election. IF you don't think the movie is interesting, then the read Rule's book.

positive

'Presque Rien' is a beautifully observed portrait of the experiences of a young French homosexual. Eschewing both stereotypes and preaching, it's a wonderfully naturalistic film, superbly acted, shot with a feel for the seaside town where the action takes place, never melodramatic but often painfully real. If anything it's almost too realistic, as there's little in the way of conventional plot, just scenes from a life. But the absence of conventional dramatic tension counts for less than it might in a world so subtly drawn. 'Presque Rien' might not be the most exciting film ever made; but its simple humanism serves it well compared with the pre-conceived celebratory or bigoted viewpoints that often mar treatments of this theme. Worth a watch.

positive