Datasets:

harpreetmann

/

imdb_max_500_test2

like 0

The more I watch Nicholas Cage, the more I appreciate him as an actor. Watching this movie now (in 2005), I can see that it doesn't really fit into the genre of movies that was coming out in the early 90s. I don't really think it can be considered a film noir, but it is pretty dark at times, due mostly to the lighting and odd personalities of the characters.<br /><br />Typical performances from each of the three main actors, who all did a good job with their roles. I thought, however, that Hopper and Boyle's characters were left undeveloped, as it was sometimes hard to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it. Hopper is a love him or hate him kind of guy. The plot is really good, and although I found some parts to be very unrealistic, there were parts where I had to hand it to the director (i.e. when he first sees the sheriff). All in all, this movie is definitely worth watching. ***1/2

I watched this movie when Joe Bob Briggs hosted Monstervision on TNT. Even he couldn't make this movie enjoyable. The only reason I watched it until the end is because I teach video production and I wanted to make sure my students never made anything this bad ... but it took all my intestinal fortitude to sit through it though. It's like watching your great grandmother flirting with a 15 year old boy ... excruciatingly painful.<br /><br />If you took the actual film, dipped it in paint thinner, then watched it, it would be more entertaining. Seriously.<br /><br />If you see this movie in the bargin bin at S-Mart, back away from it as if it were a rattlesnake.

Finding the premise intriguing, and reading the reviews, and being an Angel fan, I watched this movie. It's sexy and original, and quite entertaining. David Boreanaz is Keith. He's a hunky married man, stay at home Dad, and he feels a little inadequate in his marriage. He makes the mistake of penetrating a close circle of teenage girls who are fascinated with the idea of doing it with an older man. They'll do anything to get into his bed, including beg, lie, and blackmail, but they mostly try to push his buttons. The nuttiness that ensues sends Keith reeling, and pushes friendships to the edge. David Boreanaz shows a little skin in this one-- and he's looking hot. Yes-he plays a sleazy cheat - but he shows enough vulnerability and tenderness toward the goofy teens that you end up cheering for him in the end. One more thing, when someone moans "oh yeah, oh..oh..YEAH!!", it's hard to see them as a victim of rape.

Poor performances by Sinatra, Martin and Hyer. Grossly underdeveloped supporting characters. Annoying talky with no real plot. Ending leaves you flatter than a pancake, with more loose ends than you could tie up in four sequels (that is, if you even cared about these wooden characters). MacLaine is the only real asset. That penultimate sequence in which the "Chicago hood" searches for the Sinatra character is laughable. The music in that sequence also is poor. And in the final scene when Martin's character removes his hat for the woman he called a "pig," almost made me go outside and find a stone to throw through my television screen.

Wow, pretty amazing that something this bad could actually be made. I am giving this movie a 2 because it is so bad it has a certain "car wreck" kind of appeal. Its so bad its comical and that does have a certain entertainment value. Plus there is a bit of gratuitous nudity and that is always appreciated.<br /><br />So where do I begin. The acting is beyond awful, its like you are watching a high school play being filmed. Theresa Russell must have done something really bad to have been forced to make this movie and her acting reflects how happy she is to be in the middle of this mess.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is simply silly with the casting of Dan Cortese as an FBI agent the cherry on the top of this piece of crap. His acting actually had me laughing at loud.<br /><br />As for the screenplay and the directing C. Courtney Joyner and Mark L. Lester should simply be taken out back and shot.

I saw this movie on t.v. this afternoon and I can't see how anyone can sit through this piece of trash. It's not funny at all and it takes your I.Q. down a few notches. I know this movie is for kids, but that doesn't mean the writers should take their intelligence for granted. I bet that writers were sitting around a large wooden table and figured that a) The word "poop" equals big laugh. b) A four foot tall kid can dunk on a ten foot tall basketball net. c) Kids should always fight kidnappers armed with guns because the kidnappers will fall for anything and d) 3 months of karate training is all you need to beat up so-called "ninjas" with swords. One good thing I can say about this movie is it contains the weakest suburban "gang" in the world that couldn't scare anybody. Maybe the guys at MST3K could use this movie for a good laugh. Don't bother with this lame-ass excuse for a movie.

If you have ever babysat in a house you didn't know, or if you saw the original and enjoyed it then this will be a good choice. Ignoring the reviews and what was posted here, I went ahead and rented this movie because of the memories of how the original scared me as a teen. This movie has (of course)changed some of the original story to relate to todays teens, such as the babysitter is in trouble for going over on her cell phone minutes and has to take on a babysitting job to pay her bill. However, it sticks to the original story line pretty well. If you can relate to the babysitter, not knowing the house and it's usual pops and cracks it is quite suspenseful. When the killer is shown he is very creepy and you find yourself yelling at the girl to "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE". If you have never babysat or been in a situation like this then you probably will not be able to relate and will not like it. It's all about understanding her fear.

I spied this short on a DVD of best new Zealand shorts, all great but The french Doors was amazing. It starts off slow and you wonder if there is anything going to happen. Just as you relax into the hum drum of home renovation, the most spookiest thing happens. <br /><br />EEEEkkk, I wanted to stop watching, but I was glued. <br /><br />The films dips into the primal fear of the dark and with little, if not any, special effects. It chills you right to the bone. A simple yet brilliant concept opened up all those memories of when I was young and dream't up the most improbably but spooky situations. <br /><br />The film makers visual style are bang on and the lead character takes you convincingly through the story. It is a quality short that I haven't seen in quite some time. <br /><br />The French Doors has all the hallmarks of a great feature, alas it finishes after ten minutes or so. Never the less a great ending that begs you to want to know more. <br /><br />Loved it and well done and thanks for the ride. These New Zealanders are really turning out the talent.<br /><br />A new fan.

I saw this movie as a child and fell in love with it. It has a sweet sensitive story. Something children can appreciate. I loved so much as a child I had to find it for my daughter. It is definitely a movie I would watch with kids. It reminds me a great deal of story's of a Disney nature like Pete's Dragon and Mary Poppins. Both because of the live action and cartoon features but on its premise. It is also a good story to show kids that if they tell the truth they can be trusted and adults will listen to them. I think all kids should see it and would enjoy it. It is such a break from the violent movies of bad taste so many kids watch these days. It has all the charming qualities so many of today's movies don't have.

I think if they made ANY MONEY make a complete turd bomb like this one. The I need to get into the movie industry. I wiped my ass on a piece of toilet paper and made a better script once. Watch when the guy is running through the tunnel, they used the same 30 feet of tunnel OVER and OVER and OVER again and never even changed the location of the stupid HANGING light.<br /><br />I think if i get the THRILL of meeting the director of this GEM of a MOVIE, I think i will pick a fight with him and start it by deficating on his LOAFERS<br /><br />I think I need to puke now

Sort of like a very primitive episode of "General Hospital" set in a natal ward (and one for tough cases at that), this fast-moving programmer has a satisfying emotional impact -- mainly because Eric Linden, as the distraught young husband in the main plot, is so palpably a wreck, and with such good reason. His expectant wife, Loretta Young, is brought to the ward at the beginning of a 20-year prison sentence for offing a lecher who probably had it coming to him; Ms. Young, as always, doesn't do anything to disinvite audience sympathy, and she's a little too good to be true, though sympathetic and lovely to look at, of course. Her difficult pregnancy and relationships with the other girls of the ward form the heart of the movie, and the outcome -- not an entirely happy one -- feels right. Aline MacMahon, "one of the cinema's few perfect actresses," in the apt words of film historian David Thomson, exudes warmth and authority as the head nurse, and Glenda Farrell, as a none-too-willing new mom of twins, gets to croon "Frankie and Johnny" as a drunken lullaby. Frank McHugh figures in another subplot, and he gets to show more range than Warners usually permitted him. It's scaled and paced modestly, and Linden's expectant-dad panic stays with you for days -- this sort of part was often played for laughs, but he's a terrified young kid in trouble, and very persuasive.

Leonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states "starts off well then fizzles" when it's really the reverse - "starts off tepid then catches fire". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.<br /><br />Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic "Kiss Me Deadly") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying "Pretty neat, huh?" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, "Don't go away". She fires back "Where would I go?" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly "Yeah, that's right". The friction between them is a hoot.<br /><br />There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.<br /><br />Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.<br /><br />

Absence of a GOOD PLOT, absence of decent ACTING, absence of good CINEMATOGRAPHY, absence of decent looking SPECIAL EFFECTS...need I go on? Review MAY contain SPOILERS. The actors appear to be READING their lines, and not very well at that. Most of the "actors" were acting like they were in a SECOND GRADE play. The story appeared to have been written by one of the aforementioned second graders...it's not really all that convoluted...it's just so SIMPLE and DUMB, that a person thinks they must be missing something so they think it is convoluted. Nope it's not, it's EXACTLY as SIMPLE as you think it is. I UNDERSTOOD the "film", that's how i KNOW that it STUNK! MOST of the film just had people sitting around talking(reading their lines), TRYING to look sinister. The narrator was ANNOYING. The "special effects" were LAUGHABLE. I love low budget movies. I also like Carolyn Munro, Tom Savini, Jack Scarry, and Michael Berrymore...just not in THIS movie...you can tell they weren't getting paid, or weren't getting paid much, because neither their hearts NOR their talents were in it. I LOVE Tony Todd...however, he was only adequate in this movie. In fact, Tony Todd's performance is the ONLY reason I gave it 3 stars instead of 1...and Tony was only in it for a whole TWO MINUTES (seriously)! I would suggest to fast forward the DVD to the two minute Tony Todd segment. If I had gone to the theater, and paid more than a DOLLAR to see this "film" I would have been P.O.'D and demanded my money back. Hopefully the people who made this will do better next time.

Many have disparaged Never Say Never Again because it is not an official Bond movie. Nevertheless, it is manifest that the producers adhered to the fruitful Bond formula. Although the film does not have a pre-credit sequence, it is clear that the training exercise at the commencement of the film is meant to be the introductory scene. It would have been impossible for EON to stop the producers from including a pre-credit and title sequence, albeit without the gun-barrel introduction.<br /><br />Sean Connery is on fine form as the immortal secret agent and this film is certainly better than Dr No, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever. Although, NSNA is meant to be a remake of Thunderball, it is a vast improvement. 007 spends more time on terra firma and a more diverse range of exotic locations are included in the film. <br /><br />There is some resplendent acting in this movie. Barbara Carrera is impeccable as the bizarre Fatima Blush. One of the best scenes in the film is the coup de grace between Bond and Fatima in Nice, which is preceded by a dynamic motorcycle chase through the city. Klaus Maria Brandauer plays the psychotic Largo and Max Von Sydow is free of the melodrama that other actors portraying Blofeld have indulged in.<br /><br />NSNA tends to centre on Connery rather than the character of Bond. At the commencement it is stated that Bond is ageing and has been out of action. This seems to refer to the 12 year hiatus in Connery's portrayal of Bond. Bond promises "never again" to work in the Secret Service; an allusion to Connery's portrayal of Bond. It appears that the producers were trying to hurt the official Bond franchise. <br /><br />Nevertheless, this film is definitely worth watching. This is the last time that Sean Connery played James Bond, but his performance convinced me that perhaps he should have never have said "never again".

The antiwar musical "Hair" is my number one cult-movie. I do not know how many time I have seen this film in the movie-theaters and on VHS, or how many times I have listened the CD with the stunning soundtrack, and now, this masterpiece has been finally released on DVD in Brazil.<br /><br />The pacifist and touching story is still amazing, a hymn of freedom, friendship and liberty of choices, and pictures the resistance of a generation against the stupidity of war. I do not know what happened to this wonderful generation of the counterculture of the 70's and their dreams, since the present world is probably worse than in the 70's. I do not recall who won the Oscar in 1979, but Treat Williams and John Savage deserved at least a nomination for their awesome performances. Beverly D'Angelo is extremely gorgeous in the role of a hypocrite spoiled upper-class teenager. I have seen "Hair" probably more than twelve times, and my eyes always get wet while Berger walks to the airplane singing "That's me, that's me, that's me", and I start crying with his gravestone in the cemetery. I believe this is one of the most beautiful, sad and touching conclusions of the cinema history. My wife, my daughter and my son also love this film; therefore I can guarantee that "Hair" is timeless and recommended for any audience. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Hair"

I really liked this movie despite one scene that was pretty bad (the one when Samantha and Nick are flirting in the hotel). The story is so cool and can't wait to read the book! Bravo for the super station!

Totally different, with loads of understatement and black comedy, this is a film few get to see, but those who do will remember it. This movie creates its own universe, and is fascinating in every way. What it is about? Estrangement, I believe. Probably up to the viewer, but I found that this movie tries to say something about the coldness and emptiness behind all the designer furniture and perfect facades. Don't know if I'm right. But this movie really got to me. See it. I really hope the team behind this movie makes more movies, and that they will continue to do so in their own, some kinda weird style. And I forgot: The Casting here i superb, with Trond Fausa Aurvåg being perfect in the role as the Bothersome Man, who doesn't understand where he is, what he is doing and why. The acknowledgment of not understanding the purpose of life (in the city), is what makes him bothersome. All the others do as they are told, and pretend (?) to be happy. This movie is a good and humorous comment on life in 2006.

Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.<br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.

Oh my, I think this may be the single cheesiest movie I've ever seen. I'm serious, this is one of the ultimate b-movies. The first proof is that it isn't a $5 DVD. Oh no, that's too mainstream for this. I got this on VHS, from a bin full of ex-rental videos at my local video store.<br /><br />If I may quote the blurb: "In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan." It then goes on to say "A multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents"<br /><br />I must have seen a different movie. This was no epic, and it certainly wasn't a multi million dollar anything. No, 'Shogun Mayeda' is really just the crazy adventures of the Engrish-speaking Mayeda (Sho Kosugi). He isn't even a Shogun really, but thats not important. What is important, is that he does a really cool impression of John Cleese's repeated charging of the one castle in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and his ability to go from serious scenes to showing off his samurai mind powers. Awesome.<br /><br />The greatest thing about this movie is Sho Kosugi's Engrish accent. The movie may lack nearly everything that makes a good movie, but makes up for it with some of the cheesiest lines ever, delivered by the coolest Engrish accent ever. And honestly, do you really want anything else? You could fast forward 'Shogun Mayeda' to the end, and replay Kosugi's final line over and over. The tape will probably wear out before you get tired of that one line. Awesome.<br /><br />2/10 - So very very cheesy.

I tend to fall in and out of love with anime, as the more you watch the more you notice a lot of shows are just poor copies of the few gems or rehashes of old formulas. But every once in a while one of the true gems comes along and it's originality just blows you away. Haruhi is truly one of those shows. Many anime series are originally manga and sometimes the translation into an animated show is rather poorly done and doesn't utilize the benefits animation has over static drawings. Haruhi is actually based on a series of light novels and fires on all cylinders, beautiful animation, great voice acting, great music and a complete and well paced story. Watch it you won't be disappointed, and I'd suggest watching it in broadcast order it works so much better that way.

I just finished watching this film. For me, the most outstanding work in this film was the music score. While many silent film scores work very well with their scenes, I feel that this is the best score I've come across. The mutiny scenes in particular worked extremely well.

"The Triumph of Love" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb. <br /><br />Maybe it all got lost in the translation.

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

This film is brilliant! It touches everyone who sees it in an extraordinary way. It really takes you back to your youth and puts a new perspective on how you view your childhood memories. There are so many layers to this film. It is innovative and absolutely fabulous!

so halfway through the season, i got so caught up in school and my activities that i didn't realize that the show had been canceled halfway through, which is crap.<br /><br />i think the followers of this show should write fox and ask them to at least finish filming so that a the season can be released on DVD later. maybe then they'll see how many people were disappointed that the show didn't survive its first season.<br /><br />i loved the show and looked forward to it every thursday after the OC. can you imagine my disappointment when i came back to try and watch the show only to discover that it had disappeared? needless to say, i'm not very happy with fox right now. even more so after discovering that NO ENDING WAS FILMED. i mean, if you're going to work on a project, at least finish it to see what happens. a half filmed show is like a half made car, it's pretty much useless. fox, film the damn ending and give some of the show's fans some peace.

This was a pretty dull movie, actually. I think the problem with a French horror film, is that the French must be easy to scare or something, because this movie wasn't just that frightening. The special effects with the mummy's ghost looked like they didn't even belong in the film, as though someone put them in during post-production to spice them up, because the actors barely react to them.<br /><br />The plot just kind of meanders, which is the opposite of real storytelling. I guess this was based on a French TV series, where they had to distill it down to a two-hour movie.<br /><br />The plot is that a mummy is brought out of storage in the Louvre, which apparently has such weak security that this girl and her boyfriend can break into it multiple times. (So THAT'S how people keep stealing the Mona Lisa!) The boyfriend and the police officer from the 1960's version of this film get together and try to exorcise the demon.<br /><br />So I'm not sure if this mummy was supposed to be a bad guy or not. He kills two guards during the course of the movie, but he just wants to get to the afterlife.

I saw this movie on VHS some time ago (27 Jan 2003), just because of the name of Paul Rudd on the cover. I liked his performance in `The Object of My Affection' very much and I really expected a good work. However, I found this film a complete mess. The story has a very confused screenplay and the characters are not well developed. Further, the low-budget special effects do not help much. I do not know the previous generation of Gen-Y Cops, but this next generation is not good. I do not recall exactly why I gave this grade (and I do not intent to see this movie again), but my vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil) : `Gen-Y Cops A Nova Geração' (`Gen-Y Cops The Next Generation')

I LOVED this program, and for years searched for it on video. I've contacted a great many folks in my attempts to get a copy...to no avail.<br /><br />I DO, however, have the second half of the program. I would be willing to share MY half, with anyone who can give me a copy of the FIRST half of this show. I'd offer to provide copies of what I have to anyone, BUT it's just only part of the program...so it's just not an adequate representation of the show.<br /><br />There are a few folks selling this on EBAY for some incredible cost (and that's plainly not fair...not to mention blatant copyright violations!).<br /><br />Please send any correspondence to: thndrmouse@aol.com

Personally, I find the movie to be quite a good watch. It outlines the actual situation of triads in Hong Kong and gives the viewer a glimpse of how triads are organized.<br /><br />Not only that, it also shows the viewer how the Hong Kong police control the triad situation and why the police don't just go all out and wipe out triads.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is rather violent due to the gangland methods of killings & torture. Nevertheless, the movie stays true to the real world, thus the violence on screen is just a reflection of what really happens.<br /><br />I'd recommend this movie to any Triad/Mafia movie fan. Another good watch would be Dragon Squad. That movie has more guns than this, as in this movie there's more knives than guns (in fact I don't remember seeing a single gun).

Seriously... I'm amazed at all the good feedback this show has here. All we have in this show is two stupid kids who keep doing an annoying laugh and they do OCCASIONAL funny things only in like... 2 of the shows, while most of the others sucked... as then they comment on music videos which I cannot stand personally while they either love or like.<br /><br />In most episodes, the only things you will hear are the repitive "let's go score with some chicks", or "I'll kick your ass beavis", or the better yet and usually used quote "that was cool", and above all, their annoying laugh.<br /><br />If you want a good animated show, try The Simpsons, Ren and Stimpy, South Park, this show is just not worth the time or energy it takes to watch this awful MTV series truthfully.

Radiofreccia is a movie about all of us, about our dreams, our friends, our obsessions, our addictions, our fears. It is a brilliant movie where a group of friends like all of us have lives through the hardships of growing up in a small town in one of the most significant decades in the last century. The movie doesn't take a happy or sad approach on things, it just tells us a story, one that all of us could have experienced. One of happiness and excitement, sadness and grief. The power of this story is in that we grow to love the characters, it is one of those movies you will watch over and over again, feeling closer to the little town in Emilia Romagna where it takes place. Hoping one day to be able to finally walk its streets next to Freccia and his friends, listening to the music that changed the world through the crackling sound of an old radio playing Radio Raptus International, playing their dreams, our dreams. Radiofreccia will make you laugh, it will make you cry at times, it will shock you and comfort you, it will give you and take from you. Personally I believe it to have played an important part in my life, and that of my friends, and I suggest you all watch it and let it become part of yours.

This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.

if u haven't seen Vijay in "Ghillli", "Gilly" or "Ghillie". go watch it. wow. its devastatingly hilarious. i don't know if Dharani (the brilliant director) was being serious or not. There are tons of hot guys in this one, look out for someone who calls Velu "Maacha". The one with the brilliant braids, devastatingly hot. His teeth are brilliant as well. Vijay rocks. Trisha cries every 5 seconds. It is very deep. Watch it, you won't regret it. There are some great laughs in this one. If you don't speak Tamil, learn it. Then you will get all the inside jokes. It is one for the whole family, except maybe the violent bits should be skipped. I've seen this movie around eleven times .... and counting.<br /><br />Wow!

I thought this would be funny. I did. I don't know what happened. But I think a lot of the problem unfortunately falls with the casting. I don't know who this kid is, he could be a very nice person but he wasn't right for this movie. And the supporting cast was great which only makes it more obvious. For example there would be a scene with him and his love interest and your mind just starts to wander off but then Keith David starts speaking, or Leslie Nielsen, or Marion Ross, and it's like someone turned a light on and suddenly you can pay attention again and you think it might not be that bad. But when they get back to the main characters the lights go out again. <br /><br />The spoofing material available in the superhero genre is plentiful so the fact that most of the jokes were basically a fart, makes you wonder who wrote this thing. I mean it had a couple of funny bits, as I do remember laughing a couple of times, but right now I don't remember why and it was only a few days ago.<br /><br />Really I'm giving it a take it or leave it rating but I think most people should just leave it.

To put it simply, this was a pompous piece of canine poopie. Overly stagey and everyone being the total melodramatic drama queen at every single moment. After a while, i was starting to wish that every character in the movie wasn't such a stuffed-up anal retentive.<br /><br />And, this movie has another one of those truly annoying things that has recently come into vogue and shouldn't have: all the scenes are in a sort of washed-out, blue-steel-greyishness. Hmmm, the last time i checked, candles and torches are quite capable of putting a fairly wide spectrum of colors. In fact, the light they put out tends to be more in the warmish, yellowish-orange range of the spectrum. So where's all the blue-steel-grey light coming from?<br /><br />This movie has fancy sets and glitzy cgi fx, but it's still dreck. It's pathetic junk put out for today's movie-goers who are easily placated by pathetic junk.<br /><br />I very much enjoy vampires and werewolves as movie plot devices, but this was a total hack job.<br /><br />Universal Studios' 1941 "The Wolfman" is infinitely superior to this even though its fx is pretty primitive compared to what could be done nowadays.<br /><br />I'm done with this franchise. The first movie was reasonably decent. The second still somewhat entertaining. But this one i couldn't even finish all the way to the end because it was so boring.

Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful. Watch this and tell me if Cecil B. DeMille didn't take notes before making his The Ten Commandments. Merian C. Cooper, the photographer, later created Cinerama, an idea that probably hatched while filming the remarkable landscapes in this film. Fans of Werner Herzog will find this film to be a treasure, with heartbreaking tales of struggle, complimented by the land around them, never has the human capacity to endure been so evident. The fact that this was made when it was shows not only the will of the subjects, but of the filmmakers themselves.

Yes, this is one of the greats of the black action genre. Confusing mixture of racist comedy and racist violence (at times reaching a disturbing pitch, even for a fan of the genre) this movie isn't your Shaft in the park. Wonderful bits of Rudy Ray Moore comedy stand up that don't seem funny, at least not to a white boy like me, but great in context. Much better than its dissimilar sequel, "The Human Tornado"

There isn't much about "Reckless" that feels right, beginning with the off-putting title (thanks to screenwriter Craig Lucas, who adapted his own play, bringing the title along with him) and continuing with the casting (Mia Farrow playing wife to Tony Goldwyn, who's young enough to be her son). The couple live in an idyllic winter world that appears to be the inside of a snow-globe, but Farrow gets a startling dose of reality after he admits he's hired a man to kill her. She flees into the night, taking refuge with a very strange couple who want to help her rebuild her life. The production design and art direction of "Reckless" are fine, but they are services rendered for a completely inane, often alienating screenplay. It's supposed to be a dark holiday comedy, though the cast is at a loss with this unfunny, occasionally offensive material. *1/2 from ****

I was really stunned how much a film, that's over 60 years old could impress me. It is nearly two hours long, there are absolutely no stars in it, there are subtitles but nevertheless it is interesting and exciting to watch. What impressed me mostly was the realism of the film. You could nearly feel the coldness of the ice, because you could see that the storms are real. This is a relief in a CGI-world like ourdays. I wondered how much work this must have been for van Dyke. I read somewhere that it took 17 months to film it. Now who wants to talk about 'Titanic' anymore? It's a great film with a great message and I would recommend it to future directors to see how great and realistic movies can be if they are only directed with realism instead of visual effects.

Silly, often ridiculous romp involving the landing of a space ship and the resulting havoc this causes on Tim (Jeff Daniels) and the people in his orbit.<br /><br />Am always amazed by Daniels. He showed such depth and promise in 1983's "Terms of Endearment" as Shirley MacLaine's philandering son-in-law. As the years have passed, Daniels has been unable to get his hands on a good, meaty role. Instead, he is in inane comedies such as "Dumb and Dumber."<br /><br />As for this picture, it fails because of the subject matter. At least, the television show brought about a variety of situations. In the film, we have constant slapstick and people turning into monsters as the government is thwarted into capturing the martian-Martin.<br /><br />The part of Mrs. Brown is a perfect example of the non-success of the film. On television, Pamela Britton portrayed a ditsy individual caught up in situations with the martian leaving her perplexed. In the film version, a blond bomb-shell as Brown, tries romantic entanglement.<br /><br />Television star Ray Walston has a small role as a government agent, or is he really that?<br /><br />A very big disappointment for those who enjoyed the television show so much.

Good things out of the way first:<br /><br />Underdog's voice acting was FINE. But Jason Lee being awesome himself, that really is no surprise.<br /><br />Peter Dinklage (Barsinister) also did fine, for what trash was given to him. He acted the part shockingly well. And so did Patrick Warburton, the moronic assistant. Now, it was idiotic character but he acted so extremely well, I actually liked the character better than the protagonists. The lines given to him were childish but witty.<br /><br />However. Alex Neuberger did awful and hope he never acts again. His "Scream" was so disgustingly fake. Silence. Silence. "aaahhhhhhh". In the scene where he hears the dog talk, an "oh no, impossible!" would have sufficed in place of the pathetic fake scream.<br /><br />And then there was the girl and her female dog that chased Patrick's character Cad on the roof. At first this makes sense, she's a "Reporter." A school reporter but still an inquiring mind regardless. But why, WHY the HELL did she carry her dog around? That was worthless and the damn dog didn't even say anything other than a heartless "oh, underdog!" Her presence was extremely unnecessary.<br /><br />Overall, the script was pathetic. The only reason I give this movie a 3 is Barsinister, his assistance, and underdog's voice.

This cute animated short features two comic icons - Betty Boop and Henry.<br /><br />Henry is the bald, slightly portly boy from the comics who never speaks.<br /><br />Well here he does speak!<br /><br />He wants to get a puppy from Betty Boop's pet store, and when he is left to mind the store - some hilarious hijinks ensue.<br /><br />Betty sings a song about pets, Henry gets in a battle with birds and a monkey, but everything works out in the end.

I was very disappointed with this series. It had lots of cool graphics and that's about it. The level of detail it went into was minimal, and I always got the feeling the audience was being patronized -- there was a lot of what seemed to me as "This is extremely cool but we're not going to explain it in further detail because you won't get it anyway. Let's just show you some pretty pictures to entertain you." The host would drop interesting-sounding words such as "sparticles" and "super-symmetry" without any attempt at explaining what it was. We had to look it up on Wikipedia.<br /><br />Furthermore, I know quite a bit about superstrings (for a layman) and I found their explanations were convoluted and could have been so much better. They could have chosen MUCH better examples to explain concepts, but instead, the examples they used were confusing and further obscured the subject.<br /><br />Additionally, I got so sick of the repetitiveness. They could easily have condensed the series into one episode if they had cut out all the repetition. They must have shown the clips of the Quantum Café about 8 times. The host kept saying the same things over and over and over again. I can't remember how many times he said "The universe is made out of tiny little vibrating strings." It's like they were trying to brainwash us into just accepting "superstrings are the best thing since sliced bread."<br /><br />Finally, the show ended off with an unpleasant sense of a "competition" between Fermilab and CERN, clearly biased towards Fermilab. This is supposed to be an educational program about quantum physics, not about whether the US is better than Europe or vice versa! I also felt that was part of the patronizing -- "Audiences need to see some conflict to remain interested." Please. Give me a little more credit than that.<br /><br />Overall, 2 thumbs down :-(

For me every piece of art is to be judged by these criteria: Form, Function and Meaning. Guernsey seems to be dedicated to forms: nice shots and sometimes interesting acting. The long close ups suggest a function that the viewer may fill in by himself. Because of lacking texts the story becomes a quiz. An introvert person suggests to have depth, but sometimes it turns out he has nothing to say. This film acts like an introvert person. If you have not read the synopsis you cannot see that it was the suicide (and the unanswered question Why?) that changes Anna's view on life and makes her suspicious. 'Why don't you speak to me?' asks Sebastiaan. Anna doesn't answer, she only starts looking a long time at him without saying a word. What is the function of that shot? What does it mean? My question is like Sebastiaans: What has this film to say? What is meant by this movie? The answer for me: It shows us a handful of persons with the passion of a glass of water. The story of their lives is simple and boring. Motives behind their actions are not shown. The rest is: skins, residences, landscapes. Nice and artistic done, but meaningless without having disposal of 'instructions for use'. In my opinion this film is made for fellow artists, not for the common viewer.

I enjoy the show Surface very much. The show is very entertaining and it's a clean show. A Show like surface is interesting. It keeps my attention. It has compassion and suspense. I love all the cast members that are on the show. They are all very good choices. i think it is very important to have the right cast of Any show because thats what makes any show a success and of course the scenes and the show itself. Television has changed so much over the years. It has changed in good ways and in bad. I love to watch some comedy,action, suspense and romance. And scifi. But Surface is a show that I hope comes back for many seasons because it is a great show and its something that families can watch. My children are grown, but my husband and I enjoy watching these types of shows. I appreciate your time and letting me comment my opinion. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Paulette Blackwell

Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.<br /><br />Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.<br /><br />Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!<br /><br />Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for?

Oh man, does this movie ever bite! If you were ever afraid of seeing a rehash of the slasher genre, done as cheap as possible and as cautious at the same time (pc-friendly, means no nudity, a classic element of slasher films) Cut is it. Every cliche is retread without a hint of self-awareness and the acting. Oh, the acting redefines the word horror. I should have known better as the direct Dutch translation of the title would have tipped me off.

I don't know what Chasidik movement was this film about?I saw this film a year ago.I am an Orthodox woman, living in an Orthodox Chasidic? community And I can tell you I was offended by this movie!It's so far away from the reality, it's scary ! The director could at least hire a Chasidik Rabbi for a brief consultation, before making a "Realistic" movie about ultra -orthodoxs! For example Meir's Davening (Morning Prayers)! Or a Jewish wedding, or a Mikveh ( ritual bath ) customs.<br /><br />Movie is loaded with technical inaccuracies..but it's not them that bothered me. It's the spiritual side. Orthodoxs are portrayed next to Taliban. Woman are powerless, while men are the ultimate rulers ! Please!No one can force a Jewish girl to the Chuppa against her will ! We ,Orthodoxs,also, live by the law (Halacha ) which clearly states man's responsibilities towards his wife.No beating and no raping,also!And no man ( even Rabbi)is allowed to peak at the woman in the Mikveh.And Balanit is not to place a hand over woman's head,while she's taking a ritual bath, the idea is to immerse the whole body at one time! Director was clearly trying to bash Ultra Orthodoxs ! But could he do so at least in a nice and more educated manner?<br /><br />Love story? Cute ! But not credible.Dialogs are long and boring.The ending sucked totally.For all that drama I was at least hoping for a nice ending ,for all that sitting I felt I deserved it! Obviously someone was trying to make a nice consciousness soothing movie for less observant Jews, or for Non- Jews, perhaps..(look at those Fundamentalist, they are so evil and mean...)and they succeed! Long thing short: Was hoping for a nice Europien (Kane level ) movie, got instead a tradition bashing, unrealistic,mistakenly guiding junk. I mean , today,we live in a time of a free will as never before. Everyone has a right to choose. Malka chose a rock singer.Rivka made her choice.Meir made his. Many people from non observing backgrounds are choosing Orthodox Judaism these days.Because,in this mad world Religion might be a nice gateway !

I really liked the idea of traveling between dimensions, and I even liked the Wade/Quinn tension in early episodes. Some of the worlds they created gave the main characters extremely interesting backdrops for their stories. However, as the show went on there were more silly disputes among the friends and less of a true bond. There was less wonder and excitement when they were involved in other worlds and more condescension. And every world had one of the characters falling in love. The writing just got boring and everything was way too over the top. Too bad it would've been nice to have a closely knit band of friends (a la Star Wars) traveling to different dimensions on TV for several years, rather than a tired band of knit pickers.

Fellowe's drama about a couple's marriage which is threatened by a younger third party which interests the wife of the house (Watson). Wilkinson plays the role very well as the troubled husband who cant control his wife's cheating, and deals with the issue. I also like Rupert everett a lot in his role as William Bule, the man that Watson has the affair with. Although i think Emily Watson is a great actress, i had a bit of a problem with the way her character was written, did not make her too likable (i know a cheater is not supposed to be likable, but some of her actions and things she did had no reasoning behind them). The screenplay was perhaps the weak part of this drama, although Fellowes' direction was good and the performances were also quite good. This film is better than Unfaithful, but not a masterpiece by any means. ---IMDB Rating: 6.7, my rating: 8/10

I stumbled across this (Act-I) by pure dumb luck and this was more than a decade ago. This was'nt even what the cover label on the tape mentioned. It amazed me. It intimidated me. It shocked me. I eventually forgot about and almost a decade later, I happened to think about it again. Then went and bought both acts. They were even better than I had experienced at first.<br /><br />My only complaint is that while the Tank Police keep on going on and on about being at war with crime, warranting tanks and heavy artillery, it would seem as though they are really having a hard time with criminals. That is either never shown or is simply a lie as they appear to be taking it easy most of the time. If that bit about being in a state of war was really propaganda, it certainly has not been shown as such.<br /><br />I don't think the original Japanese version could have been any where as good as the Americanized version of this. But regarding the story, there has certainly been some proper explanations lost in translation but it can be excused.

A washed up reporter called Bart Crosbie (Pat O' Brien) blackmails gang boss Heinz Webber (George Colouris) for the money to pay for his son to have a life saving operation. In return he agrees to turn himself in for the murder of his editor, whom the gang killed in order to prevent an incriminating story being printed about them.<br /><br />Typical poverty-row b-pic of the time directed for far more than it's worth by Terence Fisher, who within months of making this would become one of the leading British horror film directors at the Hammer studio. The script is far-fetched and teen idol Tommy Steele (guitar in hand) was drafted in to sing a poor rock and roll number called "The Rebel" at a coffee bar that acts as a legitimate front for the gang's activities.

At times, the mainstream news media seems to be driven by a bunch of no-brain reporters. In that they just listen to each other and report what others report. <br /><br />This documentary shows what can be found if some more effort is put into the task of reporting about something. <br /><br />True journalism should be about providing the people with different perspectives on things that happen so that they have a fair chance of creating an own opinion. <br /><br />This documentary together with mainstream media reports, will help you with this. At least for me, it provided a lot of relevant information regarding the purpose/motivation behind the nowadays frequent world-wide protests at different political summits.

This movie was so bad, outdated and stupid that I had rough times to watch it to the end. I had seen this Rodney guy in Natural Born Killers and I thought he was funny as hell in it, but this movie was crap. The "jokes" weren't funny, actors weren't funny, anything about it wasn't even remotely funny. Don't waste your time for this! Only positive things about this were the beautiful wives :) and Molly Shannon who I'm sure tried her best, but the script was just too awful. That's why I rated it "2" instead of "1", but it's definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen.

I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.<br /><br />This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting "drama" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe.

Legend has it that at the gala Hollywood premiere screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, about 20 minutes into the film Rock Hudson yelled out "Would somebody please tell me what the hell this movie is about?" Well, I have Rock beaten by about 19 minutes, 59 seconds. This movie made absolutely no sense at all. Who were those people? Where were those people? What were the rules of the game called Quintet? Are there any rules to Quintet? Were Robert Altman and his cohorts making the movie up as they went along? What was Paul Newman thinking when he signed on to this? Maybe ol' Fast Eddie saw Zardoz and thought "Well if Connery can get involved in a futuristic film that makes no sense, so can I." Maybe the good stuff is on the cutting room floor and all we get to see is the incoherent stuff. Also, did all the cast get to keep their individual funny hats? You never saw such bizarre looking hats all in one place in your life. Quintet just confirms what I've always thought: when Altman's good he's superb, but when he's bad, he makes stuff like Quintet

.. is the Princess Bride meets... well Trainspotting. But wait, really, it's a good combination! This was definitely one of the better movies I've seen in a long time... it has the kind of witty dialog I associate with The Princess Bride or Cemetery man, along with the disgusting scenes of violence of a horror movie... the heroic feel of Princess Bride combined with the (this is odd) lack of any really good guys that Trainspotting had.<br /><br />I'm not saying it was as GOOD as the Princess Bride, but it was in the arena, and it rocked. Some of the dialog transcends pleasing to brilliant, the plot is interesting, the characters - while SLIGHTLY anacronistic - are anacronistic not due to their intrinsic nature (there WERE flamboyantly gay people in the 18th century, contrary to a previous reviewer's remarks) but just in a bit of the language they used. The anachronisms made it fun, though, and NOT cheesy and easily dismissed.<br /><br />If you've ever read any Simon R. Green, or Gleen Cook's Garrett series, you know EXACTLY what this movie is. Check it out. It's great.

The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.

I just watched Lonesome Dove, Return To Lonesome Dove, Streets Of Laredo and Dead Man's Walk. All excellent. This sorry hunk of junk is cheaply done and poorly acted.<br /><br />In the previous series, Captain Call and Gus McCrae come off as tough respectable cowboys. Despite the fact that Caption Call is played by a different actor every time each one quickly won me over. In Dead Man's Walk the boys are believable as the younger versions of the experienced Texas rangers. In Comanche Moon they are just a couple of chubby rednecks. I had to stop watching.<br /><br />I suspect many of the glowing reviews for this show were written by the people who made this stinking pile. It's a sorry end to an otherwise great franchise.

It's been mentioned by others the inane dialogue in this series and I agree.<br /><br />If Mom and daughter were really that sharp-witted they should be Queen and Princess of the Universe, not kicking around in some little town.<br /><br />I've really tried to watch a few episodes but when the witty staccato mumbling pop culture drivel starts I flip the channel.<br /><br />I watched a bit of a new episode to see if anything had changed (for the better I'd hoped) but nope, same old "we're so clever with our references to pop culture" that I nearly barfed.<br /><br />Long time fans who aren't happy with the newer seasons might just be wising up and getting sick of the regurgitated pablum that never stops.

Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"

Im usually wary of movies hovering around the 6/10 mark on IMDb. Id like to think people know what they are talking about and know what they like. I guess the trick with reviewing is to take an approach of "Hey, if i liked types of movies like these- would i give it a higher score than i am about to give it now since I don't like these types of movies" Then again people judge differently , basing more value on acting, or perhaps story or directing. Anyway, landing the plane here- i had rented this movie out before and hadn't had time to watch it, this morning i did.<br /><br />Wow! See this movie. I am personally interested in the paranormal/have read a bit about near death experiences, so automatically i was hooked. I am unsure about some of the comments here saying that a quality cast here was wasted - i disagree- the acting here was superb from all- i think this is the only time i didn't mind Julia Roberts, it was good to see 24's Kiefer Sutherland (Currently at the time of this review, serving a jail sentence for DUI), and Kevin Bacon sporting an interesting hair style.<br /><br />Overall- i liked the direction, the atmosphere, the acting, and the story line most of all- particularly the idea of karma, and , to quote Nelson Wright "Everything we does matters" So true.<br /><br />10/10!

This is easily my favourite film. A tragic romance intertwined with a complex mystery whose threads are all but invisible until they all unravel at the end in one fantastic rush. Sheer brilliance.<br /><br />I'd love to see some more of Gilles Mimouni's work, but at least according to imdb, he hasn't made any other features. Has the high quality of this work made producing another too daunting a task? Has he moved (back) into some other sphere of creative endeavour? I certainly hope this won't be his final feature but I can't really blame him if he decides to stop with this gem as his only contribution to the world of feature films.

I went looking for this movie in typical fan obsession. I just wanted to check it out. I was not expecting much of anything. After all, a musician, an actor and a screenplay writer? Not possible for so much talent to reside in one person. Right?? <br /><br />Wrong!! Obsession aside, it quickly became one of my favorites! The story line and characters are not lost in the typical hyped up Hollywood special effects. The story plucks at your emotions and pulls you along. As the credits roll by, you suddenly realize you were glued until the end.<br /><br />At times, the acting seems a little over the top. I do, however, believe it's done with comedic intent and very fitting of the character. Otherwise, I wouldn't have expected the level of acting witnessed.<br /><br />It's worth seeing more than once. I find myself laughing hysterically or gasping unexpectedly over something I either missed or forgot about the first time or two around.<br /><br />I completely recommend this movie. Feel free to go in with your doubts, but I'm sure it will find a place on your shelf.

This is one of the few movies released about a "what if" type of situation that made me think. It was amazing to hear them speak to each other, and reminisce about all the wonderful (and not so wonderful) things that happened between them. I actually think that there is a very good possibility this occurred like the movie implies, and they actually made peace with each other. Those are good memories for every fan to hang onto, and to ask what actually happened between them would be selfish. What an AMAZING movie this was. The comedic aspects of the movie were wonderful. To think that they were together to patch things up between them in such a way is a comforting thought to people who wish they had a chance to clear the air with someone they didn't get to. To see John as such a caring, laid back character was refreshing from hearing all of the trash that was spoken about him...

I am a huge fan of Ted V Mikels and the original "Corpse Grinders" is the main reason why but this is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Even the brilliant casting of the legendary Liz Renay ("Desperate Living") could not save this worthless piece of garbage. This film should serve as a lesson to all past, present and future film makers...when you have a film as successful as the original "Corpse Grinders" was you should probably leave sleeping dogs lie and you should definitely not try to revitalize it over twenty years later (unless you have the financial backing to pull of a superior sequel such as Herschel Gordon Lewis did with "Blood Feast 2: All U can Eat") Even if you do decide to do this you should probably spend a little bit more money than you did on the original and for god's sake...NEVER film a movie onto video...why do film makers even attempt to do this when everyone knows the quality is going to turn out hideous...I personally have yet to see one film made in this fashion that's even worth the powder to blow it to hell...if you can't afford to make a sequel that is better than your original film then sell the rights of the film to someone who can...and what was Ted V Mikels thinking about (or smoking) when he wrote this god-awful script? I mean come on, dog and cat "aliens" from another planet? A cardboard box painted to look like a devastating machine capable of grinding up human bodies...bones and clothes and all? If any of these actors, aside from Liz Renay, were paid more than five dollars for their hideous performances than they are grossly overpaid! Avoid this film at all costs and watch the original instead.

Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Pathetic in almost every way.<br /><br />I threw the DVD straight in the bin - I didn't even think it was fair to give it to the local thrift shop.<br /><br />The effects are beyond a joke. The dam control room looks like cardboard. The water looks way out of scale with the backgrounds - nothing works.<br /><br />Then there is the limp plot - about as much depth as a Scooby Doo cartoon.<br /><br />I couldn't wait for them all to drown.

Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from ****

I must tell you the truth. The only reason I wanted to see this movie was because of Rose McGowan. I think that part definitely worked out...pretty well actually. However, the film was very good too. Some parts of this movie are really good.<br /><br />The film has great action also. The mystery is pretty hard to figure out and Rose [McGowan] does some "Oscar-worthy" acting towards the end of the film, but I don't want to give anything away. Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow are also great in the movie, along with some of the other stars.<br /><br />If you like mysteries, or action movies, or just like Rose...I totally think you would like this movie.

Cheerleader Massacre was supposed to be the fourth installment of the Slumber Party Massacre series; if that's what they were doing (which it is considering ONE actress from the original returns in a small cameo role), they have failed miserably and made, by far, the worst installment of the 'quadrilogy'. Cheerleader Massacre seamlessly combines bad acting, a horrible plot, a dumb killer, dull and boring deaths, boring scenery, and hideous camera work to make it one of the worst films ever made. Did I already mention how bad it was? Don't get me wrong: this cheesy and retarded excuse for a horror film is nowhere near as bad as Napoleon Dynamite, but it is undeniably a horrible movie.<br /><br />Cheerleader Massacre is an exact polar opposite of the original Slumber Party Massacre. Stay away by all means! This movie is utter garbage!

This movie explores the difficulties that strain hopes, dreams, love and friendship, and incorporates humour beautifully. Along with a stunning cast and brilliant filming, the sound track enhances and amplifies the atmosphere and mood of this work of art. All actors and actresses give an extremely good performance, surpassing expectation in every way. Parminder Nagra is brought on to the big screen for the first time in this film, and she is exceptional, capturing the vividness and vitality that this movie is all about. Keira Knightly also works well with her co-stars, and this is her best work so far.<br /><br />All in all, this is brilliant film, and one that everyone should make the effort to see at least once.

i was looking forward to this, and to be honest there were some bright spots, but it would have worked better if it had concentrated on one story rather than shooting all over the world. The many dogs were a lot of fun but i got bored of the wine fascists pompously whining (;-)) on about their achievements.<br /><br />I felt it would have worked better as an hour long TV documentary, concentrating on one of the many different issues it explored. The most interesting being the french town near montpelier fighting off a an American wine company's campaign to get rid of the historic forests. A socialist mayor agreed to a deal, a nicely timed election arrived, and a communist mayor was elected, who turned it down, much to the exasperation of the American wine execs...<br /><br />hopefully the director's cut will be shorter than the original..

IT SHOULD FIRST BE SAID THAT I HAVE READ THE MANGA AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES.<br /><br />This anime greatly disappointed me because it removed the comedy and high quality action of the manga and OVA. What it left behind was merely a husk of what it could have been. Many of the characters lacked the depth that is seen in the manga. Alucard is not the sympathetic character that secretly wishes for death. Walter's story lacks the betrayal. And the Nazi villains that plot to engulf the world in war are completely absent. Instead, the anime provides the Gary Stu villain Incognito who is defeated against what appear to be all odds.<br /><br />My primary complaint is not that the anime diverges from the manga, but that it does such a poor job.

"I Am Curious: Yellow" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) "double-standard" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies.

Isabel has just gone out of jail. She is decided to not return again, but life is difficult for ex-convict, specially if they are homeless, as Isabel. When she finds the one that was her boyfriend Rufo, she can see a light of hope, but Rufo is now not only a junkie but also an AIDS ill. This will not make Isabel surrender, because, if there's a will there's a way and she is going to fight for her future, to have normal life, with a house and a family. A very hard and touching film that has passed unaware by most of the Spanish cinemas, actors are great and the story is very touching, maybe a better treatment of the secondary characters would have made the movie better, but it is really good. I highly recommend it to watch it, but be aware that this is not a Disney happy film, it is hard and dramatic.

This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.<br /><br />I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch "different" and indie "horror" movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers.

There is no "fun" poking fun at the desperate plight of illegal immigrants! Or the desperate plight of head-shop owners, for that matter! That the richer-than-God Brian Glazer didn't see the irony of having the "heroes" do exactly what the villain does - rob honest, hardworking people of their life savings - doesn't surprise me! Hell, how do you think he got to be richer than God?!<br /><br />In this alleged satire about greed, these mental midgets reveal their own hypocrisy: the McMansions, the McToys, the McChildren, the McIllegals who are paid peanuts to take care of the McMansions, the McToys, and the McChildren! But the main problem (aside from the revolting bigotry) is the premise: as the former executive of a now-infamous company, Dick would be the Big Scalp for every corporate headhunter in the country! No soup kitchens for him! And, raking in high six-figures, you'd think he wouldn't be caught dead around a Gore/Lieberman poster!

My wife and I have watched this movie twice. Both of us used to be in the Military. Besides being funny as hell, it offers a very realistic view of life in the Navy from the perspective of A Navy enlisted man, and tells it "like it really is". We're adding this movie to our permanent collection !

Well let me go say this because i love history and I know that movie is most important piece in our history and it was beautifully executed movie and Julia Stiles became my #1 favorite actress after seeing her in "The '60s" and i own this movie in my video box with many movies and i suggest you to look for her new movies in the future and try to enjoy history!!!!

"When a Killer Calls" is an unusually nasty slasher flick, with some very unpleasant and unsettling sequences. The decision was clearly made to try and cash in on the remake of "When a Stranger Calls" by pretty much putting in -- almost word for word -- the phone call sequences from that movie. They seem very forced.<br /><br />Additionally, the filmmaker commits the cardinal (but all too common) sin of having the heroine's friends being repulsive jerks. So for the beginning of the film, we really like and are rooting for the babysitter (a nice believable job by Rebekah Kochan), but then she's joined by standard slasher-flick teenage friends and the mood is ruined.<br /><br />The flick sort of works, but it probably a lot more unpleasant than you'll be expected, so be fore-warned.

I'm shocked that there were people who liked this movie..I saw it at Tribeca and most of the audience laughed through it at scenes that were not meant to be funny. I felt bad because the lead actress was in the audience, but honestly the plot to this movie needed MAJOR revision..it didn't even make sense, one second the characters question what exactly it is that they're snorting..the next scene they're hopelessly addicted and figure out how to make it?? Also the ending just took the cake..I'm not going to spoil the magnificent conclusion..but it pretty much blended right in with the rest of the horrible plot/script...see this movie for comedy if you must..

The movie is incredible, it has a sound track which sets the tone for the movie. THe lines in the movie are great, such as "Nothings to good for out friends" and "Its collection time Charlie collection time." I can watch this movie over and over again and still laugh because the lines and action are one of a kind. I feel that when i watch this movie I want to go out and shoot down bad guys, If there is a movie that you don't want to miss its this one. "They killed the Giggler man, they killed the Giggler" "They had no right in doing that, hes on our turf ill take care of it." The lines just keep on coming in the movie. Deff. go out and not rent but buy this movie its worth the money trust me.

The show itself basically reflects the typical nature of the average youth; partying and picking up chicks is the common weekend goal at the clubs. People frown upon the show due to its "perverted" idea of picking up girls using technique and strategic characterization, but truth be told, practically every young guy is out doing it at the club. Overall, the show really appeals to the younger population, as we like to see the outcome of a "player's" performance at the club, as the show offers a comical approach made possible by the judging panel. <br /><br />10/10; a cool, fun and thrilling series that allows the audience to really interact. Good Job Boys.

I bought the DVD a long time ago and finally got around to watching it.I really enjoyed watching this film as you don't get the chance to see many of the more serious better quality bollywood films like this. Very well done and but I would say you need to pay attention to what is going on as it is easy to get lost. When you start watching the movie, don't do anything else! I would actually advise people to read all the reviews here...including the ones with spoilers, before watching the movie. Raima Sen gave her first great performance that I have seen. Aishwarya was easily at her best. All performances were strong, directing and cinematography...go watch it!

Preston Waters, a 11 years old boy,has problems with his parents and brothers specially because of money issues. He is crazy to have his own house and his own rules,since his brothers always stole his saved money and his parents neglect his wishes. One awful day, Preston was riding his bicycle; It was the same day that the villain of the story,Quigley, was trying to scape from the Police and accidentally ran the car over Preston's bike. Needing to be far away from the police, Quigley gives in a hurry, a check to cover the damages of Preston's bike. The problem was: It was a blank check! Preston is a clever boy and decides to have a high price on that check: 1 million dollars! All that money gives Preston things that he always wished for, like a mansion with pool,lots of toys, and even a limousine! The problems start to begin when the FBI and Quigley wants to know where the money is, making Preston in a hard situation and facing many problems.<br /><br />This movie was one of my favorites during my childhood. :)

This movie was almost intolerable to sit through. I can get beyond the fact that it looks like it was shot with a home video camera and that this movie is supposed to span over weeks in time yet the characters do not once change outfits, but the acting broke the 4th wall to pieces for me. I've seen better acting in a 4th grade play. Aside from that the plot is unrealistic. If the man suspected the guy he would have turned him in. I was also heavily disappointed that all the killings were done with a gun what kind of gore is that. That is not a copycat the Zodiac did not kill using just a gun the authorities would have known it wasn't him. Another thing that really bothered me was that they called Disassociative Identity Disorder DSM 4 when that is the name of the book used to diagnose people with mental disorders not the name of the disorder. Overall I think this movie is not the kind of movie that could be done with a low budget at least not as low as they had or they could have made sure they had better actors or more gore. Plenty of people have went the low budget route with out having to use horrible actors look at Easy Rider that had Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson and a low budget.

In Crystal City, a group of Mormons hire the horse traders Travis (Ben Johnson) and Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) as wagon masters to lead their caravan to San Juan River. Along the journey, they meet first the broken wagon without water of the quack Dr. A. Locksley Hall (Alan Mowbray) and the prostitutes Denver (Joanne Dru) and Fleuretty Phyffe (Ruth Clifford). Then the sadistic outlaws Clegg boys decide to join the Mormon caravan to disguise the patrol leaded by the Sheriff of Crystal City that is chasing them. When the Navajos cross their path, they are invited to visit their hamlet for a dancing party. When the wagon train is near to their destination, the Clegg boys threaten the settlers, forcing Sandy and Travis to take an attitude.<br /><br />"Wagon Master" is another great western of John Ford. The sequences with the wagon train crossing the desert and the hills are impressive. The adventure of the group of Mormons is funny and very entertaining and the songs fit well to the plot despite being dated. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Caravana dos Bravos" ("Caravan of the Braves")

If you're a fan of film noir and think they don't make 'em like they used to, here is your answer -they just don't make 'em in Hollywood anymore. We must turn to the French to remember how satisfying, subtle and terrific a well-made film from that genre can be. Read My Lips is a wonderfully nasty little gift to the faithful from director Jacques Audiard, featuring sharp storytelling and fine performances from Emmanuelle Devos and Vincent Cassel.<br /><br />The basic plot could have been written in the 40's: dumb but appealing ex-con and a smart but dowdy femme fatale (who turns out to be ruthlessly ambitious) discover each other while living lives of bleak desperation and longing, manipulate each other to meet their own ends, develop complex love/hate relationship, cook up criminal scheme involving heist, double crosses, close calls and lots of money. All action takes place in depressing, seedy and/or poorly lit locations. <br /><br />Audiard has fashioned some modern twists, of course. The femme fatale is an underappreciated office worker who happens to be nearly deaf and uses her lip reading ability to take revenge on those who marginalize her. And where you might expect steamy love scenes you discover that both characters are sexually awkward and immature. Add in a bit of modern technology and music and it seems like a contemporary film, but make no mistake - this is old school film noir. It's as good as any film from the genre and easily one of the best films I've seen all year.

Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.<br /><br />But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?<br /><br />Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.<br /><br />He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing "thousands" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history? <br /><br />He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point.

Its unfortunate that someone decided to spin off on the best horror movies of all time in my book. This poor copy steals lots of material from the first three films going as far as even copying how persons die and what will happen in the future to the key characters and it basically tries to cram in three films into one and fails. It fails even to create a good scary atmosphere for one (except with the odd exception where the impressive choral music brings back memories of the old films).<br /><br />The only thing we can be thankful for is that there has not been an Omen V.

Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.<br /><br />The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.<br /><br />The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.<br /><br />Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.<br /><br />Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.

It hurt to watch this movie, it really did... I wanted to like it, even going in. Shot obviously for very little cash, I looked past and told myself to appreciate the inspiration. Unfortunately, although I did appreciate the film on that level, the acting and editing was terrible, and the last 25-30 minutes were severe thumb-twiddling territory. A 95 minute film should not drag. The ratings for this one are good so far, but I fear that the friends and family might have had a say in that one. What was with those transitions? Dear Mr. Editor, did you just purchase your first copy of Adobe Premiere and make it your main goal to use all the goofy transitions that come with that silly program? Anyway... some better actors, a little more passion, and some more appealing editing and this makes a decent movie.

Having read some good reviews about this film I thought it was about time I go and see it. Well I don't know why I bothered. Basically this family is entrusted with a clue that leads to a whole big stash of ancient treasure, hidden by the Knights Templar during the War of Independence. Apparently it had to be kept out of the hands of the British at all costs. Firstly, why did said Knights move the treasure from Europe to America? How did Nic Cages character figure out that 'Charlotte' was in fact a ship? How do they figure out all the clues and riddles in about a minute? And how could two people suddenly become master thieves and steal what is probably the best guarded bit of paper in the world? These are just some of the plot holes in this inane bit of Hollywood action gone wrong. Cage has been in some great action movies - 'Face-Off' and 'The Rock' - so why has he lowered himself to this? Is he getting too old?! His character is pretty annoying really - Somehow this 'ordinary' guy steals the Declaration of Independancd, outruns thieves with guns, escapes from the FBI and generally seems invincible. The whole film doesn't really make any sense and all in all it was quite a disappointment.

When I first heard about this movie, I eagerly went out to rent it, believing (mistakenly) that it was one of those so-bad-it's-fun movies and that I was in for a treat. I was wrong.<br /><br />For starters, the pace is agonizingly, mind-numbingly slow. The pace doesn't even begin to pick up until the last 15-20 minutes of the movie! The plot was boring, and the ending was nonsensical and confusing. For those looking for a cheesy horror movie with cheap thrills, look elsewhere. This movie provides the cheesiness in spades, but is sorely lacking in "thrills," cheap or otherwise.<br /><br />Try "Child's Play," instead.

Extremely pinching vision of a war situation where the couple from Vargtimmen (ok, they have different names and initial situations, but the actors are the same) gets caught in the crossfire of two fronts. The depiction of the fighting parties as faceless, superordinate authorities are often captured in sublime surreal pictures and draws interesting parallels to Orwell's 1984, even if Bergman thwarts this context on a personal level of a slowly burgeoning conjugal war. That is why countless fundamental and philosophical questions towards Eva's and Jan's marriage are relevant and essential, while the threat and danger from the outside tears open an abyss in the inside which was toilsomely covered with lambencies before. An intense allegory on the fragile facades of civic conventions.

What a perfect example of "Less Is More..." Kurt Russell (Sgt. Todd) only has 72 lines, and something like 104 words. What a challenge! Like a black and white photo, when your mind's eye has to fill in the blanks, the facial expressions, the physical drama, the emotive gesture, all combines to make a stronger impact. This is one of those top 5 movies I can't live without, right up there with the classics like Road Warrior. If you liked this, check out "Mad Max 2, The Road Warrior" and "Braveheart" both starring Mel Gibson. Also "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe and Connie Nielsen who was in Soldier also. The "Thirteenth Warrior" starring Antonio Banderas and "Blade Runner" starring Harrison Ford.

When I was 13 or so I was lucky enough to find this film. It was part of an endless Danish series of really cheesy stuff. This however was the cheesiest I ever owned - but I guess I sold it, too bad. Well what to write... Better than "Manos: the hands of fate" and worse than "Critters 4". But it's definitely worth an hour and a half since this was made by people who wanted to make it. The acting isn't that terrible compared to several other eighties trash - in fact I kind of like the old man even though he did'NWT look that Indian to me. But I guess you can't have everything... Do yourselves a favour and look this up...

Good historical drama which is very educational and also very entertaining to people who like history.Very good acting and script.Not as sensual and sexy as it is sometimes marketed,be prepared to peek into the pioneer spirit and human ability to adjust.Very touching as well for the spiritually mature. Not for people who do not like to think......

This French film is supposedly about a creepy, dim-witted cop who investigates the rape and murder of a young girl in a small town. However, the film is really about nothing and it takes forever to say nothing. If it takes a character ten minutes to walk from Point A to Point B, the film spends ten minutes showing this walk, and these are the "action" scenes. There are also static shots that last for minutes, making the viewer wonder if he accidentally hit the pause button on the remote. The script has enough material for a 20-minute movie. The movie lasts seven hours or so. You do the math. The actors were apparently amateurs and it shows. Note to self: never see a Dumont movie again.

This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!