Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

Previous comments encouraged me to check this out when it showed up on TCM, but it was a severe disappointment. Lupe Valdez is great, but doesn't get enough screen time. Frank Morgan and Eugene Palette play familiar but promising characters, but the script leaves them stranded.<br /><br />The movie revolves around the ego of Lee Tracy's character, who is at best a self-centered, physically and verbally abusive jerk. The reactions of "the public" are poorly thought-out and unbelievable, making the "shenanigans" seem like contrivances of a bad writer. And it strains credulity that the Lupe Velez character could fall for him.<br /><br />The "stinging one-liners" mentioned in another review must be dependent on the observer, since I didn't even notice that an attempt was being made.

Unbelievable!<br /><br />this film gets a 7 out 0f 10. This has to be one of the worst films i have seen in years. not only was the acting incredibly bad, the storyline (if you can call it that) was just as bad. Offcourse everyone knows what's going to happen within the first 5 minutes. Which is not a bad thing if you can captivate the audience during leading up to that moment. That however, is not the case. There is no action, no suspense, not even a spark between the 2 leading actors. It was unfortunately a waste of my time, and certainly a waste of my money. <br /><br />and the 2 of merely for trying

Boring, ridicules and stupid "Submerged" is a waste of time. The shootouts were a joke, real people do not just stand out in the open with out any cover, hoping to get shot first! So many things wrong or bad, not worth the effort to list, except one major flaw. At 500 mph for 20 minutes = about 166 miles west of L.A. and the water is 100ft deep??? Even at that, none of the people would have survived the decompression from being subjected to 100ft of water pressure for more then 20 hours when they were brought up. Just a awful.

I really liked this movie, and went back to see it two times more within a week.<br /><br />Ms. Detmers nailed the performance - she was like a hungry cat on the prowl, toying with her prey. She lashes out in rage and lust, taking a "too young" lover, and crashing hundreds of her terrorist fiancé's mother's pieces of fine china to the floor. <br /><br />The film was full of beautiful touches. The Maserati, the wonderful wardrobe, the flower boxes along the rooftops. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Greek class and the recitation of 'Antigone'.<br /><br />It had a feeling of 'Story of O' - that is, where people of means indulge in unrestrained sexual adventure. As she walks around the fantastic apartment in the buff, she is at ease - and why not, what is to restrain a "Devil in the Flesh"?<br /><br />The whole movie is a real treat!

I rented this movie not knowing what to expect but WHOA was I in for a treat!<br /><br />For anyone who, like myself, was waiting for a good movie that combined horror and sci fi, it is time to rejoice because the wait has finally ended. Writing, acting, filming and directing - all top notch. I hate to admit it, but I actually cried at one point (when Dracula was talking to the crippled guy). Truly an emotional roller-coaster from start to finish. The corridors of the ship provided the perfect spooky setting for this tale and the actors were really able to make their fear come alive to me. And Coolio as a vampire....very nice!<br /><br />And believe me....as great as the bulk of the movie was...the ending will BLOW YOU AWAY! I know this movie gets a lot of flack on this site for some reason but I know NONE of you saw the ending coming. Brilliant!

Ocean's Twelve: just plain stupid, bad and nothing compared to the other two.<br /><br />An art robbery. 10 known actors, at least. A weak script and very slow developing idea. That's why I characterize a movie I only saw at least 20 minutes of it. Don't get me wrong, you may like it. But I only like the Ocean's films because of the Heist theme. If Ocean's 12 it's not about Heist then what's the point to see it? Glad Soderberg saw his main error and redeemed himself by making a film far superior to the first one. Kudos for that.<br /><br />Steven Soderberg isn't really a good director. Apart from his hit "Sex lies and videotapes"... nothing else happened so much great to the career of this director. Shame on him. But his fault only.

How could I possibly pass up the chance to see Orlando Bloom and Heath Ledger together? Well, I couldn't and so, I rented this mess of a movie.<br /><br />I had never heard of Ned Kelly and was surprised by what I found out about this young man's legend. I was also surprised at how mediocre this movie was. Perhaps the fact that it was very, very late and at the end of a 4 hour movie marathon or maybe it was because it really is a little slow, I found this story difficult to follow. Not because the story is complicated, but because it is slow. Even with a slow story, Ledger and Bloom managed to create interesting, dimensional characters. <br /><br />Though I flounder to recommend this as a must see, it is a great story of Australian history (considering how young the country is, this is very rare and should be appreciated) and the film does have some good actions sequences. <br /><br />6/10 see it for historical value....(yeah right...and that's the only reason to see it... ;) )

I've read some of the other comments and I do have to agree with the ones that didn't get the ending. I thought it was going rather well..until the end. It kept your mind running and then splat. I have not clue what went on the last couple minutes of the movie except a complete mess. It's like they ran out of money to come up with a good ending so they improvised. First they had a mysterious thing making people disappear then they had a guy talking about Area 51 (which makes you think about aliens) then after they it went to crap. I thought the actors and actresses did fine it's just the script went sour. Anyways, if you do watch this movie be prepared to be disappointed at the end.

First the easy part: this movie is pretentious crapola!<br /><br />It put me in mind of "Magnolia". And then I thought "Wow-- somebody made a movie even dumber and more irritating than "Magnolia".<br /><br />I know nothing about the Polish brothers, but this film seems to have been made by someone who learned a lot in film school but knows nothing about storytelling. The trite plot elements and sledgehammer symbolism are bad enough, but the dialogue is just pathetic. <br /><br />Detailed comments would just be a laundry list of failure. The parts that are supposed to be funny or satirical are not; the "elegaic" parts are nice coffee table pictures with mediocre music; the "emotional" parts are simplistic.<br /><br />The worst thing is that the movie shows no love at all for the characters, except for a little cornball dignity in the priest.<br /><br />I still can't believe the respect some people have given this picture.

I think it great example of the differences between two cultures. It would be a great movie to show in a sociology class. I thought it was pretty funny and I must say that i am a sucker for that "lets band together and get the job done" plot device. It seems most people don't realize that this movie is not just a comedy. It has a few dramatic elements in it as well and I think they blend in nicely. Overall, I give it a solid 8.

This wasn't all that great. Not terrible or hateful or anything, just forgettable.<br /><br />It had a sort of, um, hesitant, diluted air, like it never properly knew whether it wanted to go for laughs or for sweetness or for satire. So we were left with weak mix of the three. The actors seemed kinda lost.<br /><br />Also, the ideas were really tired and recycled, almost zombified themselves. How many more times do we have to be told the 50's in the States were infected with a banal sense of conformity? And that this was perpetuated by aggressive consumerism? And that emotional repression in men is a baaaaad thing? Old hat.<br /><br />Its biggest crime in my eyes though was just how detached from reality it was. I know it was a comedy and all, but - especially in a full movie where you must keep the interest of an audience for a prolonged period - you still need some sort of emotional anchor, some relatable guide through the story, to make it engaging. For the 'hero' kid to watch an old woman, two fellow school pupils and ultimately his father die painfully at the hands of zombies or whatever and for him to greet it all with a cheery smile and a shrug of the shoulders, then I just struggle to deal with that in any sort of positive way. The mum was the same. If you make your two main characters so inhuman on that level, then you risk losing me and that's what happened.<br /><br />Biggest positive I can offer is that I love the look of that sort of apple pie suburbia and this captured it well enough, it was a handsome film, especially some of those wide angled shots of the street and inside the Robinsons' house. Also, the opening newsreel was cute, in a been-done-before-but-still-funny sort of way.<br /><br />And I thought Billy Connolly was OK and that comes from someone who isn't a big fan of Billy Connolly: Movie Star. I just had this fear he was going to be hamming it up and trying to steal every scene, but he played it pretty low-key for him and probably came out the most sympathetic character in the whole film.<br /><br />All in all, not great though.

I first saw this film as a young boy and recently purchased it on DVD.<br /><br />James Stewart brings great depth to the role of Chip Hardesty, a hardworking and dedicated FBI agent. His life in the Bureau is intercut with his family life, which is not all rosy. His wife (an excellent portrayal by Vera Miles) lives in fear of the dangerous nature of his job, and they even separate for a time; Chip's best friend and fellow agent Sam Crandall (Murray Hamilton) is killed in a gunfight; Chip's son, Mike, enlists in the Marines during World War II. Through it all, the family carries on with bravery and dignity.<br /><br />The action sequences are quite exciting and the semi-documentary style of the film works effectively. And the music by Max Steiner says it all; fidelity, bravery and integrity.<br /><br />This country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of the FBI and, yes, to J. Edgar Hoover as well. If Mr. Hoover's type of vigilance had been observed, we might have been spared 9/11, the surge in crimes against children and many of the venal politicians we've had to put up with since his passing.

A stolen shipment of Vigoroso, the mexican Viagra; a beautiful girl who is trying to rebuild her life and to leave her husband, a boss of the italian Mafia; a young sheriff who falls in love with his old sweetheart. This is the plot of "The Shipment", a country comedy located in small town of Paradise, Arizona. Despite its simply and classic story, the movie (directed by Alex Wright) has its fun moments: when Elizabeth Berkley (as Candy Porter), looking at a Vigoroso green pill, says: "What"s this? A mint candy?". Or when the girl enters the sheriff"s house and finds him completely naked. Or when the Vigoroso shipment ends up in THAT lake, at the final sequence... The cast offers some nice performances: by Matthew Modine as the sheriff of Paradise Valley, who still loves his old girlfriend; and by Elizabeth Berkley, who"s character still loves her old boyfriend... The supporting cast, including Nicholas Turturro, Paul Rodriguez (as the mexican Josè) and G Michael Gray (what kind of teeth...), makes a pleasant work, too. Not an Oscar material, but not so bad. A fun comedy without pretence.

I love this show! Mr. Blick, Gordon, and Waffle are cats so different from each other, yet they refer to themselves collectively as 'brothers.' I often find myself trying to imitate the tired, sighing accent of their butler, Hovis, or even the Scottish borough of Gordon. There should be more episodes made about Human Kimberly. The episode about the cats disguising themselves as pre-teen girls to gain admittance to Human Kimberly's slumber party in order to get their thirsty paws on their favorite drink, Rootbeer, is a hilarious classic. We can't drink rootbeer in our house now without either doing the Catscratch voices or the Hanson Brothers from the movie 'Slap Shot.' Future classic. Where can I get the first two seasons on DVD??

I've just purchased the restored version of a film that I remember with much affection from childhood and it's certainly made for a curious afternoon's entertainment. Bedknobs definitely makes more sense in its complete form, the deleted scenes (especially those with McDowall) link events together quite neatly. What is a little disconcerting is the way the scenes have been remastered. Clearly, the soundtrack to this footage had been lost or damaged, so some bright spark at Disney decided to dub the scenes with new dialogue. Which would have been great except that half the cast weren't around to do it (some for better reasons than others) and the whole thing has a rather shoddy quality to it. Some of the lip-synching is pretty poor, and David Tomlinson's voice has been dubbed by a bloke who sounds absolutely nothing like David Tomlinson (there's actually a hint of German in it, I think). However, good to hear the full versions of all the songs (although 'Step in the right Direction' is still absent) and the moments of magic in this film still shine through. And I challenge you not to giggle when young Paul gazes so innocently at Angela Lansbury and coos "but what's that got to do with my knob??"

This is an interesting idea gone bad. The hidden meanings in art left as clues by a serial killer sounds intriguing, but the execution in "Anamorph" is excruciatingly slow and without much interest. There is no other way to describe the film except boring. The death clues are the only interesting part of "Anamorph". Everything connecting them is tedious. Willem Dafoe gives a credible performance as the investigator, but he has little to do with a script that is stretched to the limit. Several supporting character actors are wasted , including Peter Stormare as the art expert, James Rebhorn as the police chief, Paul Lazar as the medical examiner, and most notably Deborah Harry, who is featured on the back of the DVD case, yet only has a couple lines spoken through a cracked door. Not recommended. - MERK

If I rate the film maybe a bit high, you can blame it on sentiment. This is one of the first movies that I remember seeing and totally loving. I saw it at the drive-ins here in California in the late 70s. I was already a big fan of "The Muppet Show" on TV so I was primed for the movie, and the movie did not disappoint. Basically it takes the whole absurdist ethos of the Muppet show and transports it from vaudeville into a road movie. Kermit the Frog is on a quest to become famous; not because he wants to take champagne baths and ride in a private jet, but because he wants to "make millions of people happy." Of course.<br /><br />Along the way he picks up all his beloved muppet friends, most endearingly Fonzie Bear who he meets at a seedy bar doing stand-up. They sing "Movin' Right Along", a song that has always charmed me with its upbeat melody and its theme of friendship and shared discovery. He also encounters enough Hollywood movie stars to fill a Stanley Kramer movie, including comedy luminaries like Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, Edgar Bergen, Milton Berle, and Mel Brooks. Brooks in particular has a rather dull bit, and you are left feeling that Henson could have cut a few of these cameos out if he wasn't afraid of offending the stars. Anyway, as befits a road trip movie like this the very first person he meets is Dom DeLuise.<br /><br />The ending is one of the more odd examples of literally breaking down the 4th wall that you will find in any "children's" movie. The Hollywood dream seems to be crumbling all about them, when a real rainbow pierces the Hollywood set with its authentic joy and mystery. I'm sure this was meant to relate to some of Jim Henson's own personal or spiritual experiences.<br /><br />This is the best movie with Muppets by a long shot. If you or anyone else was wondering why the Muppets were so popular back in the 70s, considering how poor the movies have been for the last few decades, I think this film has at least aged well enough to provide a clue.

The opening sequence alone is worth the cost of admission, as Cheech and Chong drag that big ol garbage can across the parking lot, filled with gas. "Don't Spill it Man !", hilarious stuff. And then, as 'the plot' ensues, you're in for one heck of a ride. I watched this film recently and it holds up, being just as funny upon each viewing. check it out.

Our America is multi-cultural, with so many sub-cultures. This movie simply tells a story of a snapshot in time within one of these sub-cultures. It is basically an objective look at a group of forgotten people, living their lives oblivious to the rest of the world. Generally, a good movie. It entertained, provoked thought, and showed lives that would not be seen otherwise, right in our own back yard. Should be seen by all. Having lived in the U.S. all my life, I had no idea that there were citizens here that didn't know they were citizens. This movie helps illustrate the diversity of our country by showing this small part of a southern state. The obvious conclusion: If this is really for real, then what else is out there that we know nothing of?

I have for years remembered a song "JUST A COUPLE IN A CASTLE" ("No. twenty moonbeam square, just a couple in castle in the air"). I couldn't find the song, but I remembered that it it had to do with cartoon bugs. I located a reference to the movie on the web. I had seen the movie when I was only 9 year old at the Ligonier PA theatre. I was pleased to find that it had Kenny Gardner the singer with Guy Lombaro (I am a Lombardo fan). And then to see that it was produced by the Fleisher Bros. who did another very good full lengh cartoon feature of "Gullivar's Travels" (also remembered fondly). Also the songs were associated with Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser who are among the very best. No wonder I remembered the film, the song, and the colorful animation. As a full lengh musical this is a movie which should be remembered as a one of the best of the early full lengh musicals. Now that I remember it, the plot may not have been earth shaking, but was very well presented and makes for a easy to watch abd delightful movie.

I went to see the movie because my boyfriend was raving about how much he wanted to see it, and how his friends had already been and loved it. So I came in with a neutral attitude, not really expecting the worst. Unfortunately, that is what I got. I could write a 15 page paper on why this is easily THE WORST movie I have ever seen. But for your benefit I will point out the pros and the endless supply of cons. To begin, the acting was very good, especially Christopher Waltz and Melanie Laurent. There were also a few lines that deserved a laugh, and a couple suspenseful scenes. Sadly, good acting, a little humor and suspense is where the good points end. The whole beginning story could have been great. A Jewish girl's family is butchered, she goes into hiding, later encounters the man responsible for her pain and then hatches a great plan for revenge. Sounds very good. But the movie wouldn't be quite as "satisfying" for the Americans and Jews craving Nazi blood. I have no problem with WWII movies or killing Nazis; I saw Defiance and like it very much. However, it's the way and attitude with which our would-be heroes kill. I'll give you a prime example of the kind of hypocrisy this movie oozes. Our hoodlum gang ambushes a German unit and kills/scalps all of them except a sergeant and two other soldiers (no problem so far). They ask the sergeant to divulge information on another German unit. When he "respectfully refuses" to betray the lives of his fellow soldiers they bash his head in a with a baseball bat, cheering, and swearing as if they were at a football game. They took that Nazi's head off yaaayy! Now let's look at the hypocrisy in that scene. Here's a hypothetical situation: a group of American soldiers are ambushed and taken captive by the enemy. The same scenario follows and the American commanding officer would rather die than betray his fellow soldier. The enemy bashes his head in with much celebration. This would infuriate an audience if this scene were in a movie. That American soldier was a hero for placing his men above himself, and those barbarians brutally murdered him! Well…what about the Nazi sergeant? Well he's a Nazi and deserves to die the cruelest death possible, right? Coincidentally, the Nazi's felt the same towards the Jews. See the hypocrisy? By celebrating the butcher of the Nazis we are placing ourselves on the same sadistic level. <br /><br />Major hypocrisy #2: The Nazis make a propaganda movie about a German sniper who kills nearly 300 American soldiers. Near the end of the movie, the film is revealed. Hitler and his cohorts giggle with delight as they watch an American soldier get shot out of a window and fall into a fountain. The Nazis cheer as soldier after soldier falls to the snipers skill. This is supposed to enrage the American viewers of this scene. Those evil Nazis are laughing over the deaths of our brave men! Well the irony is, isn't that what we were doing (or supposed to be doing) the entire time we're watching Inglorious Basterds? Laughing over the pain of others simply because they were "the bad guys." How would we feel if Native Americans somehow made a hit film in which they reek bloody vengeance on the American settlers? Or what if blacks made a movie glorifying the Nat Turner Rebellion? OK enough about the hypocritical flaws. <br /><br />I'll summarize other reasons for the 1 star rating. 1) There were view admirable characters throughout the movie. Brad Pitt even tortures a woman by sticking his finger in her gunshot wound because he suspects she betrayed him. He's the good guy? 2) Scenes dragged on way longer than they needed to. 3) Brad Pitt's southern, supposedly Tennessee accent is HORRIBLE and thoroughly annoying throughout the entire move. I'll quit now since I'm at 700 words. <br /><br />Unfortunately it seems that the general population doesn't think anymore, they just want blood. And that is why this movie received such a high ranking. I recommend this movie for the ignorant or if you are Jewish and simply wanting to see a nice "fantasy justice." Personally, when I finally got out of the movie theater I felt like I had been scalped (or wish that I had so I wouldn't have suffered over 2 hours of mental rape).

As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will endure. I've a feeling I'll be watching this again and again for years to come.<br /><br />It's got all the timeless qualities you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are obscure for me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a universal tale.

Great music, great dancing, a sexy star (Swayze) and actual sexual desire shown by a female character (a very unusual event!). You rarely see female characters who are motivated primarily by lust and it is a nice change. I also think the movie captures very well what it is like to be a teenager coping with issues of class and of having ideals suddenly come up against reality. Of course, it is sappy at moments - it is, after all, a movie musical - but all in all it is a real pleasure - a fun romance and also politically enlightened. This movie also has one of my favorite all time movie lines: "I carried the watermelon."

I don't think this is too bad of a show under the right conditions. I tolerated the first season.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is a show about lawyers who aren't really lawyers. God forbid anybody actually go to law school based on these shows, which I had heard was the case when I watched some interviews of the show. It just made me gag a bit.<br /><br />That aside, Spader and Shatner, who are supposed to be the stars of the show, are the most annoying. While this might be a compliment in some situations, it's certainly not here. Their constantly harassing the women on the show is funny at first. But since that's what they're doing literally all the time, I've realized that this is as deep as the show is going to get. Trying to intersperse some serious, dramatic, and even tear-jerking moments in the middle of this mockery of a real show fails to compensate for the progressive loss of interest I've been experiencing trying to enjoy the show.<br /><br />Alan Shore's flamboyant and gratuitous "public service announcements" where he spouts off his opinions do not impress. Denny Crane is just annoying. I was embarrassed for him and for the writers of the show for Crane's speech wearing a colonial outfit.<br /><br />I'm giving two stars because there are moments where I thought the show's attempts to deal with some contemporary issues were done with care.<br /><br />I think the show's writers became aware that the sexual harassment displayed by Denny and Alan was getting overbearing even to those who were more inviting of them from the start. The thing is, I don't care if the sexual harassment treatment in the show is done well, but I just felt that the writer was insulting me with artificially implanting sexual banters all over the show in the hopes that my libido will keep me coming back for more. I'm not a teenager anymore, and I think this show is promising if its goal wasn't to cater to the lowest common denominator to get ratings.<br /><br />Of course, I'm writing this after I realized that it's really not gonna get much better than this. It's a shame because it's one of those shows I'd love to love.

This was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.<br /><br />Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from "Cheers"). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from "Office Space" up to "Sex & the City"). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.<br /><br />Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping "what the f**K!," baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.<br /><br />This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have "Norm" from "Cheers" and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie.

Unbelievable. I never saw something like that. Everything is bad; really bad. From photography (lots of scenes without focus!) to the acting (the young female is terrible). And what can we say about those helicopters made in Paint Brush...? Really amazing B, I mean, Z film.<br /><br />The plot are bad, cliché and bad wrote. Basics conveniences to the screenplay seems to work. I can't even think a young student of cinema making this movie. Nothing justify it.<br /><br />I recommend that you don't even think to see this movie. Sleep or play solitary are best choices. ;)<br /><br />xxx

Want a great recipe for failure? Take a s****y plot, add in some weak, completely undeveloped characters and than throw in the worst special effects a horror movie has known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash). The result is Corpse Grinders, a movie that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places.<br /><br />The movie utterly blew. My words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is a long, boring, sad waste of time. Corpse Grinders II is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. I depresses me when I realize that people actually took time out of their lives to act in this shit, if you can call it acting. But than again, when you have poor direction, poor storywriting, poor everything, acting is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really with I could somehow destroy every copy of this film, so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Ted V. Mikels, for giving me new found respect for every movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful, and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy or boring.

"Japan takes the best from around the world and makes it their own", while that may be true, it applies to all except for one thing, that being,.....Major league baseball....but not to worry, "Mr Baseball" is there to try and change all that. But just who will change whom, is the part of the movie that really makes it rock! Tom Selleck is one of my favorite actors and really shines-on in his comedic roles. The storyline may be true to life, however the subplot is dead-on. The Japanese people are a gentle, respectful people with ways and traditions very different than those of Western Society. All of these elements and obstacles combine to make for one truly enjoyable, funny film. It's definitely worth the watch!

Fantastic Russian WWII movie. Like most Russian WWII movies, The Ascent is incredibly harrowing. It's also dense in its symbolism. The story follows two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak (Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin), who go on a mission to search for food. On their trip, they are spotted by German soldiers, who wound Sotnikov. Sotnikov, in turn, kills one of the Germans, which leads to trouble for the two partisans and everyone else they later run into. The greatest success of the film is its vivid sense of place. Russia is frozen and snowy, and it's hard not to feel that cold go straight to your own bones. Shepitko keeps her shot close to the characters, examining every crag of their faces. It was probably not the choice, but the film is framed 1.33:1, which gives the film a sense of claustrophobia. While the entire film is quite an achievement, I did feel that the first half was stronger than the second. My main complaint about the movie is that it develops into a very unsubtle Christian allegory by its climax. I just don't think the symbolism adds much to the proceedings, especially when I was already intrigued by the debate between the two partisans. It's not quite fair. I was weighing the pros and cons of their argument. I began to lean toward the point of view of a certain character, and then the director pops up and tells me that he's Judas! Despite some heavy-handedness, this is still a must-see.

Southern Cross, written and directed by James Becket is a waste of good celluloid and actor's efforts. A formula film is not necessarily bad if it pays off on it's promise, which this film does not. It is a tiresome concoction of movie cliches that can be traced to a thousand different films from the past. It is full of random and empty plot twists that add nothing but aimless action, such as a trip by the protagonists to a ghost town where the villains (unexplainedly) follow them. This was obviously concocted as an excuse for a shoot out and escape scene bordering on the preposterous, with people popping in and out of doorways and running past windows while firing pistols at each other. It makes one believe that somebody told Becket there was a ghost town in the Chilean foothills and he said, "Oh great, lets do a shoot out scene there."<br /><br />Don't even waste your rental money on this. It is a bunch of random bits and pieces from a hundred different films thrown together to call an action drama.

Bergman is a sublime comedy director and writer. This fact becomes apparent in "En lektion I kärlek", where the comic elements range from pure slapstick to deep, yet very emotional scenes. This movie is paves the way for Bergman's later comedies "Sommarnattens leende" and "Kvinnodröm", all of them starring Gunnar Björnstrand as well as Eva Dahlbeck. This is an excellent movie with which to start your Bergman experience, acutely portraying emotional troubles of the young as well as the old. The cinematography by Martin Bodin is astounding, for instance in the picnic scene. In short, the movie is a perfect example of a successful comedy, with a clarity of depth even surpassing some of Bergman's own comedies.

I'm from Ireland and I thought this film had the odd minute or two where accents where a little off but no worse than any Brad Pitt or other American doing the accent. Furthermore, I have rarely seen any British actor handle an American or Canadian accent except for Colin Farrel in Minority Report. This film is a little film and it was entertaining. No it wasn't a Blockbuster Hollywood production but frankly I'm sick of that shite. I laughed more than a few times and had a good time. It was definitely worth the rental. The main character is a spoof on other hard British gangsters. At least that's the way I saw it. If you go in expecting a $100 million dollar production you'll be disappointed. Enjoy it for what it is- a small entertaining film.

Old movie buffs will know why I'd call this one "The Man in the Grey Flannel Robe." Most Bible-based movies are basically schlock- what might call forth smiles and giggles here is how Peck, tries to raise consciousness on a variety of psychological and social issues with the spear carrying Neanderthals all about him. As a Great Romance, it falls flat as unleavened bread. But there is something gripping about this movie. Of all the big Hollywood Bible pictures it most strikingly conveys the ambivalent attitude of the Average American towards belief in the Biblical God. Billy Sunday's thesis is duking it out with H.L. Mencken's antithesis all through the script. Who gets the better of it in the Heavenly Chorus-backed synthesis depends on your point of view. Other than that, D & B boasts a good performances by Peck ( especially in the closing repentance scene) and by Jayne Meadows as his bitter first wife Michol, vivid, moody atmosphere (good idea to set most action at dawn or night), and the rousing rendition of the Twenty-Third Psalm at the end.

JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box<br /><br />To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants<br /><br />The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous<br /><br />One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?<br /><br />The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story<br /><br />Even there are several cringeworthy scenes<br /><br />Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced<br /><br />Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent

If you are planning to schedule your program for a film festival, do not be misled by what it says in the booklet. This is a complete waste of time and energy. I have watched Bunuel, I have seen Dali, and admired them; but this isn't surrealism, this is not supposed to BE at all. Didn't they ever think about the reputation of human race while taking this picture? After we become extinct by global warming, these will be the remainings of our civilization. What if the aliens sample this as an example of our intellectual capital? With all due respect to the effort put in this, maybe it would be a good idea to terminate all the copies of this film - or whatever it is.

I purchased a DVD of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. That's probably the best and kindest comment I have to offer on it. At least it didn't cheat me out of the cost of lunch.<br /><br />The problem with "Chiller" is Craven's problem as a director. The man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he's a really smart guy and all-around sharp conceptualist. But it's no secret that, as a director, he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story-telling sense of a Hitchcock. As vigorously attested by "Chiller", he's much closer to that legendary flat-foot Hershel Gordon Lewis. What Craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film- making.<br /><br />Let's be specific. The transitional moments of this film are sleek. The establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. The film looks professionally put together, in the way a film shot by a TV commercial director would. (A thought: The films only visual distinction, these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors.) It's the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions -- the drama -- that fall flat. <br /><br />The core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. The critical shots (after, say, the departing car drives into the well-positioned camera, then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital, then to the waiting area and hallway, then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. Craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. The net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts, and the fumbling rush to keep things moving, is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils, fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set-up, grinds all his pigments, stretches and primes his canvas ...and then has nothing to say. Craven, like the art student, never gets to the meat of the exercise.<br /><br />For Craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for TV, I will point to Spielberg's "Duel" and say no more.

I grew up in Royersford, Pa. The town where Jerry's market was. I remember my whole family going out to watch the filming. I remember a guy showing the "Blob" to me and my brothers in a bucket. I also would like to share that my mother was in the movie. Her hair style was the same as Aneta Corsaut's and she was ill one evening and they saw my mom and asked her to sit in the car with Steve Mcqueen for some shots from behind. They payed her $25.00 and gave her a story to tell until she passed away this past August. My mom was not a teenager and she was a few months from giving birth to my little sister.

That's what me and my friends kept asking each other throughout this entire flick. We couldn't believe how stupid it was! I think somebody shot this on their camcorder at home and snuck it into the movie store and put it on the shelf as a joke to see if anybody would ever pick it up. Well, I guess the joke is on us.<br /><br />I guess I should have come to this website first and read all of the reviews it has gotten, every single one says this movie is HORRIBLE, STUPID, and on and on. And boy are they right! Although it did provide some pretty good laughs (me and my friends were pretty drunk) because it is so stupid. We just can't believe somebody was dumb enough to make such a crappy movie! I swear this had to be made in the 70's before they had good technology for movies and stuff because every scene looks really crappy, but when I looked on here it said it was made in 2001? What? It sure doesn't look like a movie that would be made today, but I guess that's what you get when you use a camcorder and shoot home movies using strobe lights and really fake looking lasers, and use real life people from your home town instead of actors or even aspiring actors. BTW-some of those chicks (or were they drag queens, we couldn't tell!) were so fugly, even my drunk horny college buddies wouldn't touch them with a 50-foot pole.<br /><br />So there's absolutely no appeal to this movie at all, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Don't waste your time or money on this one, you'll be completely disappointed!

Spoilers<br /><br />Wow, END OF THE WORLD is a singularly underwhelming cinematic experience.<br /><br />Here is the full story: a scientist is getting messages from space (a la INDEPENDENCE DAY). The messages say stuff like a massive disaster is about to happen and then the scientist hears later on the radio that a huge earthquake just happened in China. He starts thinking that the messages have something to do with the disasters around the world so he's trying to figure out who's receiving the messages (and who's also sending out messages in space). He and his wife eventually figure out that the messages come from a convent. They visit it. Everything looks normal, including the priest played by a bored Christopher Lee. But the scientist is adamant and really believes that the messages are coming from and going to that convent. So he and his wife secretly go back to the convent where they are caught snooping around by the aliens, disguised as priests and nuns. They are held against their will and the alien played by Lee forces the scientist to get something they need in order for them to return to their planet. Once the alien get the special element, the aliens all depart one by one to their home planet in some sort of tacky looking transporter platform. Lee, being the last alien left, tells the couple that the earth will be destroyed because of some sort of hokey decision by the aliens. Lee walks in the transporter and he's gone. The couple, looking at the monitors that show stock footage of natural disasters occurring all over the world, decide to follow the aliens. Because earth is doomed, the couple doesn't see any point of staying behind so they walk in the transporter and disappear. The last shot of the movie is a papier mache planet earth exploding. The end.<br /><br />That's it. <br /><br />I've never seen such a dull movie in my life. It's the most underwhelming movie I've ever experienced. The scientist and his wife are two of worst heroes or protagonists ever put on screen. They don't care about anything. They see the earth disasters on the monitors and decide "what the heck, who needs earth anyway?" They don't even try to stop them or do something to make things better. This kind of story might have worked if the film had an overwhelming sense of doom to everything but the action and atmosphere are nonexistent. The actors and the folks behind this dull flick are going through their paces, so much so that you can almost feel when they punched their cards when they got off and returned to work. I wasn't expecting much with this movie because it IS a Charles Band production, but I didn't expect it to be this bad.<br /><br />Christopher Lee was once asked what was his worst film he ever made and he mentioned STARSHIP INVASIONS. Well, I'm sorry Chris but STARSHIP INVASIONS was actually goofy fun. STARSHIP INVASIONS is terrible but terribly entertaining. END OF THE WORLD is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worst: it's beyond dull and inert, with NO entertainment value whatsoever.

There are certain scenes in this film (like the hero's first meeting with super-villainess Shirley Eaton) where it seems to be on the edge of breaking sexual taboos and doing its premise (females want to rule the world by making men slaves) justice, but it never dares to. The result is a film with no sexuality and some tame violence. Despite the choppy plot, the film is not overly bad until its climax, where its amateurishness runs rampant (terrible editing, overuse of stock footage). Worth seeing only as a curio. (*1/2)

most of the bad reviews on this website blame "Hood of the Living Dead" for one (or more) of the following reasons: 1) it is a low-budget movie with virtually no acting; 2) it was so bad it made me laugh 3) it is something I could do myself. I won't even discuss the first point because it is a very subjective matter whether you like low-budget and independent stuff or not. I must say, however, that I still fail to understand people renting such a movie as "Hood of the Living Dead" and then looking surprised when they realize it is not as polished and cute as a romantic comedy with Lindsay Lohan or Matthew Mc Conaughey. As for the second point, I really don't see what's so wrong with laughing. I personally like to laugh, and love movies that make me to, be they comedies or horror flicks. When in "Hammerhead" I saw this girl stepping into a PUDDLE and the shark-man came out of it to eat her, I just cracked up. And I was grateful that the director made such a stupid scene and gave me ten seconds of pure fun. Honestly, laughing just makes me feel good, while it seems that many people writing reviews see it as a bad bad thing. If you only want to feel sad and scared while watching a movie, "Hood of the Living Dead" and low-budget flicks are definitely not for you. But please don't come and tell us that you find them laughable. We already know it. This is most probably why we decided to watch the movie in first place. However, it is the third point that leaves totally baffled. Just several years ago people were lining up out of theaters to see "Blair Witch Project", which is a way more rudimentary, boring, plot-less and bad-acted movie than "Hood of the Living Dead" (and takes itself way too seriously too). Moreover, half a million people go on YouTube every day to see the short films of "Lonelygirl15", which is certainly something everyone with a cute girlfriend, a room and a webcam could do! Not to talk about all of the even more amateurish videos you can find there. Why don't people blame those clips for bad acting and non-existing plot? I think it is one of the best things of our times that everyone, with affordable technology and a bunch of friends, can make their own movies and share them with people that have similar interests. And I feel a certain admiration for people who spend their weekends with their friends making a honestly bad (yet refreshing) piece of trash like this rather than shopping at the mall or playing video games alone. Leave aside your biases and your desire to sound like a smart film critic by attacking b-movies, and you'll see that "Hood of the Living Dead" can bring you almost as much fun as it did to its makers! If you have a taste for refreshing and enjoyable home-made horror movies, I recommend "Zombiez", "The Ghosts of Edendale", "The Killer Eye", "Monster Man", "Don't Look in the Basement", "The Worst Horror Movie Ever Made", "Redneck Zombies", "Jesus Christ Vampyre-Slayer" and "Habit".

I saw this movie when it was broadcast on television in February of 1983. I was in the hospital, having just given birth to my first and only child. I'll refrain from telling you the extent to which I was moved. Suffice it to say that the memory of the movie has remained with me to this day, almost 23 years later. I hope I can find a copy of this movie, if such a thing was ever made. This movie should be remembered fondly by anyone who ever saw it. However, I must admit that the fact it remains somewhat obscure is just fine by me. This way, it will always be a small secret to me and those who were also moved by it. I never saw Ms. Margaret perform a better part. Nor have I ever seen her in a more convincing role. I will forever respect her just for accepting such a lovely part.

I saw Brother's Shadow at the Tribeca Film Festival and loved it! Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen are great as father and son. The film follows Scott Cohen from parole in Alaska back to his family in Brooklyn. He shows up there because his brother has died, and he embarks on a journey to slowly repair his estranged relationships with his brother's wife and child and his father who has never forgiven him for being the black sheep of the family. The story takes us deep into the hearts and minds of this family and allows you to more deeply understand the complexity of their lives. Also, the imagery of the woodworking business and the Brooklyn backdrop sets the tone for this rich and revealing family portrait.

One question that must be asked immediately is: Would this film have been made if the women in it were not the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis?<br /><br />The answer is: Probably not.<br /><br />But, thankfully, they are (or were) the cousin and aunt of Jackie.<br /><br />This documentary by the Maysles brothers on the existence (one could hardly call it a life) of Edith B. Beale, Jr., and her daughter Edith Bouvier Beale (Edie), has the same appeal of a train wreck -- you don't want to look but you have to.<br /><br />Big Edith and Little Edie live in a once magnificent mansion in East Hampton, New York, that is slowly decaying around them. The once beautiful gardens are now a jungle.<br /><br />Magnificent oil painting lean against the wall (with cat feces on the floor behind them) and beautiful portraits of them as young women vie for space on the walls next to covers of old magazines.<br /><br />Living alone together for many years has broken down many barriers between the two women but erected others.<br /><br />Clothing is seems to be optional. Edie's favorite costume is a pair of shorts with panty hose pulled up over them and bits and pieces of cloth wrapped and pinned around her torso and head.<br /><br />As Edith says "Edie is still beautiful at 56." And indeed she is. There are times when she is almost luminescent and both women show the beauty that once was there.<br /><br />There is a constant undercurrent of sexual tension.<br /><br />Their eating habits are (to be polite) strange. Ice cream spread on crackers. A dinner party for Edith's birthday of Wonder Bread sandwiches served on fine china with plastic utensils.<br /><br />Time is irrelevant in their world; as Edie says "I don't have any clocks."<br /><br />Their relationships with men are oh-so-strange.<br /><br />Edie feels like Edith thwarted any of her attempts at happiness. She says "If you can't get a man to propose to you, you might as well be dead." To which Edith replies "I'll take a dog any day."<br /><br />It is obvious that Edith doesn't see her role in Edie's lack of male companionship. Early in the film she states "France fell but Edie didn't.<br /><br />Sometimes it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said. Both women talk at the same time and constantly contradict each other.<br /><br />There is a strange relationship with animals throughout the film; Edie feeds the raccoons in the attic with Wonder Bread and cat food. The cats (and there are many of them) are everywhere.<br /><br />At one point Edie declares "The hallmark of aristocracy is responsibility." But they seem to be unable to take responsibility for themselves.<br /><br />This is a difficult film to watch but well worth the effort.

The filmmaker inhaled Andy Goldsworthy's art, his search for closeness with the land and the water, and his sense of proportion -- and so gently, so beautifully breathed it back on to film for the rest of us. "Rivers and Tides" loves Goldsworthy's work and joins it as a visual concert of time and human presence in a flowing world, a world that hides its power in plain sight. See this movie!

Surprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes cliché script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie cliché firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also.

"Drawing Restraint 9" is a kind of movie one either loves or hates; fortunately or not, I left it with a strong feeling of wasted time and of being thoroughly stuffed with "killing whales is bad" propaganda. Aesthetically, the movie could have been pleasing, especially its first half, until it is not clear that every action portrayed serves as an allegory of various aspects of whale hunting. Until then, it might be slightly amusing to look at daily chores of japan workers, but later it becomes obvious that anything that appears on the screen is a propaganda, and no single frame is an exception. I use the word "propaganda" because the movie uses basically the old morality play device, where "good" and "bad" are not deduced in the course of action but are set in stone. Probably it's just me, but I find such type of art shallow and preconceived, even when it's all about the noble (no sarcasm here) quest of protecting the environment.<br /><br />In my opinion it is a cardinal sin when a movie material is stretched out without any justification, for the sake of stretching only. In my opinion, "Drawing Restraint 9" could've been easily fit into 75 minutes, but has a torturous length of 2 and 1/4 hours. Yes, there were interesting shots, but there were not enough of these to leave 15-minute gaps of nothingness without notice. The movie has no standard scenario, and there's no evolution of characters, but neither it is a documentary, it's rather a kind of conceptual installation. That's an unusual form for a movie, but it still can be viewed as art even when the concept is as simple and naive as here. OTOH I also believe that the director should've had some honesty and did not pretend that it could be only delivered in no less than 135 minutes.<br /><br />And yes, the music score mostly resembled whale sounds. How surprising.<br /><br />2/10.

THE GREEN BUTCHERS (Anders Thomas Jensen - Denmark 2003).<br /><br />How do the Danes keep coming up with these films that are consistently funny, sharply written, exquisitely filmed and filled with great performances? THE GREEN BUTCHERS is a dark and wickedly funny comedy, in many ways the Danish counterpart of EATING RAOUL and DELICATESSEN, but it has more on offer than just laughs or parody. <br /><br />The film brings us the duo of chronic pothead Bjarne (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) and chronic perspirer Svend (Mads Mikkelsen). Sick of their evil boss, the two pals decide to open their own butcher shop in a small Danish town, but initially business is slow and customers stay away. When an electrician is accidentally locked up and freezes in their meat locker, Svend decides to turn the man's thigh into fillets he promptly nicknames "chickie-wickies." This special dish suddenly has everyone in town flocking to their counter and Svend - unable to resist this sudden leap into popularity - turns into a serial killer with Bjarne acting as his reluctant accomplice. But soon, led by their ex-boss, many people in town are starting to wonder what special ingredients the two men are using.<br /><br />Without the extraordinary performances by Kaas and Mikkelsen, the film might not have risen above the level of the average black comedy. On paper, the character of Svend might border on caricature but Mads Mikkelsen portrait is that of an earnest, insecure and deeply twisted man, but Mikkelsen manages to make him frightening, funny and moving at the same time. Kaas actually plays a double role, also playing his comatose twin brother Eigil. When watching the film, I never even realized it was the same actor. The other performances are just as wonderful with every character in town refreshingly off-the-hook with some truly wonderful vignettes.<br /><br />The subject material is - naturally - a bit morbid and the material might not be completely fresh, considering quite a few predecessors that handled the same kind of material, but director Jensen gives it a fresh twist and manages to build some real characters with the strange duo of Svend and Bjarne, with this wonderfully bizarre tale of two social misfits.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 9/10

Set during WWII, Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a fun-filled fantasy adventure for kids, starring Angela Lansbury as an apprentice witch who, with the help of three evacuee children and a 'Professor of Witchcraft', thwarts a Nazi invasion.<br /><br />Brilliantly inventive, with loads of laughs, this movie will delight kids of all ages with its great characters, exciting story and catchy tunes. Lansbury is perfect as Eglantine, the not-quite-perfect witch who takes the three children on the adventure of a lifetime, and her three young co-stars (Cindy O'Callaghan, Roy Snart and Ian Weighill) are equally impressive as the Cockney rascals who aid in battling the nasty Hun.<br /><br />The special effects are somewhat dated, but let's face it, kids don't care too much about these things, so long as they are entertained. And entertained, they will be. With some impressive scenes which brilliantly mix live action and animation to great effect, and more genuine movie magic than a hundred Harry Potters, it would be hard not to enjoy this wonderful slice of cinematic escapism. In fact, only a rather drawn-out musical number set in Portobello Road mars the film's perfection, but with so much else to enjoy, that can easily be forgiven.<br /><br />And besides, any film featuring UK television legend Bruce Forsyth as a 'Flash' Harry style spiv is guaranteed a good rating from me.

Gillian Holroyd (Kim Novak) is a witch. Secretly, she's attracted to her quite normal neighbor Shep Henderson (James Stewart). She casts a spell on Shep that forces him to dump his fiancé and fall for her. Things are going along quite nicely until Gillian discovers she really cares for this mortal man. She decides to tell him her secret. But how will Shep react when he finds out that he was "tricked" into falling in love with Gillian? <br /><br />As far as light-hearted 1950s comedies go, Bell Book and Candle is good, but nothing spectacular. It's an enjoyable enough watch and should appeal to almost anyone who sits down with it. Just don't go into the movie expecting the greatest thing since sliced bread. The movie's cute, funny at times, and touching in the end. Kim Novak and James Stewart do their best and have some real chemistry. Novak (as others have pointed out) looks quite incredible in an understated sort of way. The supporting cast with Jack Lemmon, Hermione Gingold, and Elsa Lanchester is often laugh-out-loud funny and steals a lot of the spotlight from Novak and Stewart. The biggest problem I see is that Bell Book and Candle can't quite decide what kind of movie it wants to be. Is it a screwball comedy? Is it a romantic comedy? Is it a supernatural comedy? Had director Richard Quine stuck with just one approach, the movie might have been even better and more memorable.

Irwin Allen was great. All of his TV shows had a great pilot, or first episode. the rest were basically rip offs of his other shows. A few episodes of Swiss Family Robinson were rip offs of his older TV shows. One episode of Swiss Family is identical to an episode of Land Of The Giants when a member of the party needs an appendix operation. The show was high budget and too expensive to continue. Irwin lost his touch with TV shows after the 60s. The acting is strong with Martin Milner. Child stars got there starts with this show like Willie Ames and Helen Hunt. one bright spot is when Irwin Allen incorporates his disaster scenes like a typhoon and a volcanic eruption dubbing him the " Master of Disaster "

I'm not gonna lie. To say that this movie is confusing is like saying the sun is hot but not really. And if you've seen cult director Richard Kelly's previous films, "Donnie Darko" and "Southland Tales," you know that's gotta mean something. When I went to see this movie, there were about 50 people in the theater. Before an hour into the film, about half of the audience had already walked out. By the end, there were only 15 people left wondering what in the hell did they just see. I for one could only comprehend roughly 40% of what I saw on- screen, and even then it can only be called interpretation. So why did I give this movie a generous seven stars? Because for one, we get some spectacular performances (Marsden's great and Langella returns as a familiar creepy character), and most importantly two, because it's entirely original and Richard Kelly, undoubtedly one of the bravest directors alive, uses his creative vision to tell a story that dares to be different. Quite frankly, it's the ONLY way - only through Kelly's unique style could this story be told the way it's intended.<br /><br />In the end, if you're not willing to spend some serious thought into an intelligent movie (and even then it may all amount to nothing), stay FAR away from this one. But if you want to watch a deep, rich, complex and thought-provoking piece on spirituality, existentialism, and the predictability of human nature, go see this. Be prepared for lengthy discussions with your partner however.<br /><br />*Note: If by chance you've read this review, taken my recommendation, have actually seen the movie and STILL believe you've wasted 2 hours of your life, I'd be happy to share my views on the whole meaning and plot of the film. See, that's why I liked it so much - it promotes discussion! As hard as it is though, I'll try summing it up by paraphrasing a rather depressing quote by Langella's character, who explains the significance of the simple box to an employee: "Your house is a box which you live in. The car that you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box... to rest under the soil and earth."

This is an excellent documentary about a story I hadn't heard about before. The first solo, non-stop sailing race around the world took place in 1968-69 and involved a handful of racers. It's a truly fascinating story about man vs. nature and man vs. himself. The story focuses on Donald Crowhurst, the tragic figure in this story. The film elegantly combines interviews with footage which was shot by the sailors themselves aboard their boats. The story is very suspenseful and sad as we learn the details behind the history of Donald Crowhurst. This is one of the best documentaries of the past few years. It has true human emotion in it as the men face this almost impossible task of navigating the world non-stop on their own.

The Good:<br /><br />Effective color scheme. Good costumes. Top notch set production. Well detailed CGI buildings and vehicles.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />Horrible mixture of actors with all CGI actors mixes Fifth Element with Final Fantasy. The CGI actors look even worse than video games from a few years ago. Flawed logic. A giant pyramid shows up and no one researches it, no one really even questions it? And there is no explanation as to why the god Horus was even cast out, nor was there any reason why he must do something as trivial as impregnate Jill?<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />Awful script. So many unnecessary subplots with too many ideas that are not fully realized. The dialog was almost laughable at some points. Random characters and events that are not needed. Dull characters. Jill is supposed to be this mystery, but apparently she was just a mystery to the writer. There is nothing to her. She is uninteresting and boring to watch. She has no substance, no texture. Her character has no redeeming qualities. In fact, there is not one character in the entire film who has any purpose, any goals (besides the obvious one of Horus), any motivation. They are weak and ill-conceived. There are no stakes - the key to screen writing. Horus will not become immortal, but, big deal, he is a bad guy. One cannot even decipher whether Horus or Jill is the main character. That is the problem: devoting half the movie to each character means the writer never fully explores one character, never brings one to fruition. They are cardboard cut-outs who walk around and talk and pretty much do nothing but explore the fine set pieces. First time director pacing. Slow, slow, slow. I am still watching the movie as I write this. I cannot pay attention because it is boring. Everything is flat. Even the action is not interesting because it is short-lived and sometimes unnecessary.<br /><br />Overall:<br /><br />Not worth a watch. Threadbare story, sub-par character development, corny CGI does not save the nice set production.

This movie reminds me old B movies, but not in a good way.<br /><br />When I saw the first scene I thought it was going to be a spoof of one of those early SF films. The terrible acting, the plastic props and the noticeable visual effects gave me that impression.<br /><br />But no, the movie is really that bad. The story is a complete nonsense, the effects are below the level of a TV production; even the editing is a mess.<br /><br />The only thing that kept me in the theater was that I wanted to know the end of the story, although I was pretty sure it was going to be silly (and it was).<br /><br />There are better ways to spend your time and money.

As a camera operator, I couldn't help but admire the great look that this picture achieved. The performances were excellent, as was the story. Just when I thought this film was about to slow down, it didn't. Heart-pounding tension, great pacing through editing, and a score that knows when to be quiet all come together here under competent and capable direction. The camera was always in the right place. Love that.

* Terrible * * Below Par * * * Not Bad * * * * Good * * * * * Brilliant<br /><br />WARNING *MINOR SPOILERS*<br /><br />Homosexuality these day's is hardly the taboo subject it was over forty years ago.However it must be said that perhaps more so in America than say, over here in the U.K. it can still be a touchy subject.Just look at the whole debacle of gay's in the millitary some years ago in the US.It's with 'In and Out' that writer Paul Rudnick taps in to the small town mentality of middle America and the way the press in the US (As well as in the UK) make such a big deal in outing a celebrity.You need only look at when Will Young and Stephen Gately of Boyzone came out of the closet.<br /><br />The movie centres on Howard Brackett(Kevin Kline), a High school English teacher in his home town.The local people are preparing themselves for Oscar night as one of the nominees Cameron Drake(Matt Dillon) came from their town and was a former pupil of Howards. Cameron, who plays a gay soldier in a vietnam epic wins the award only to out Howard as being gay during his acceptance speech.This could not come at a worse time for Howard who is just day's away from marrying his fiance and fellow school teacher Emily(Joan Cusack).As you would expect the media reaction is cataclysmic and turn's Howards life upside down.Not only does he try to convince his family and friends that he is not gay but evade sleazy news reporter, Peter Malloy(Tom Selleck).<br /><br />Although this was billed as a screwball comedy it's clear that Rudnick and director Frank Oz are also attempting to be satirical.You only have to look at the early scenes at the Oscars cerimonee and the way the people of Bracketts home town as well as the teaching board of the school react to his outing.<br /><br />Sadly the film doesn't live up to the promise we see early on in the movie.This is a pretty flat attempt to make social commentary out of a wacky comedy.A good cast is sadly wasted on a script that never really delivers the nessecary amount of laughs and is no where near as insightful as it thinks it.<br /><br />Kline gives us the same kind of endearing performance that he gave us in his earlier comedy 'Dave', making Howard an instantly likeable character. Cusack too is good value as Howard's weight obsessed fiance while Tom Selleck play's very well against type as a gay news reporter.Bob Newhart is a joy also, as the principal of the high school where Howard works.It's great to see him on the big screen for a change.It's a shame that it had to be this.<br /><br />The performances as good as they are can do little to rescue the movie from being a rather dull affair.While a couple of scenes do offer some amusement.Namely the inspired scene where Howard attempts to make himself seem more manly by listening to a self help tape.There is little to enjoy, and when things can't seem to get any worse Rudnick resorts to a sickening finale that lurches in to over the top sentiment. I also couldn't help but feel that my intelligence was being insulted.Malloy appears to be too sleazy a character to become the man who put's his ethics before getting a good story while Cammeron finally come to the rescue in the film's climax seems at first to be too self involved a character to care a jot about what happens to his former teacher.After all it's he who caused all the trouble in the first place.<br /><br />'In and Out' isn't exactly dire.But when you consider the likes of Klines better work like 'A Fish called Wanda' you can't help but feel that here is a great talent being sadly wasted.<br /><br />Robs Rating:* *

Evening is the beautiful story of the flawed love of a mother. The movie split in time, is magically shot, amazingly acted and has a touching script. Vanessa Redgrave plays Anne Grant Lord, a woman sun-setting out of life. Lying in her bed, her mind remembering and misfiring, she recalls her first mistake. Claire Danes plays the young Anne, giving a youthful vitality to dying bed ridden woman. Daughters Nina (Toni Collette) and Constance (Natasha Richardson) try to decipher the real story from the disheartening dementia. Her first mistake revolves around Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson); the man her best friend Lila (Mamie Gummer) deeply loved. The daughters must come to terms with their mother's past, and their futures. The cast is glowing in Evening. The collective acting energy of this movie could have powered the equipment for the production of this entire film. I am so glad to see Claire Danes working again, especially in this role. She is so young, and alive, fully living the joys, mistakes and heartbreak of young Anne's first mistake. This is a true feat when you realize she is playing a woman, dying in bed. When her life overwhelms her, you can feel her desire to crack and her hopeless hope that she won't. Some of her facial expressions grinded on me a little, but over all her performance was so radiant, I was left with that only as a side note. Toni Collette continues to prove that you can be a powerful actress without being a super model. She plays the black sheep of the family; a little lost. Nina finds a great deal of strength in her mother's mistake. Collette delicately avoids creating a cruel character who revels in the mistakes of her mother, instead choosing the wiser path of learning from her mother's mistakes. There is a great deal of infighting between Nina and her sister Constance. Their fights remind me of ones I have with my sister all the time. Mamie Gummer, who plays Anne's youthful best friend, is wonderful. Her character is stuck between her heart and her status in society. Even when she is crying and her heart is breaking, she is incredibly regal and charming. I can't wait to see her act in something else in the future. Vanessa Redgrave's performance is very hard for me to describe. Her talent at making her mental status ambiguous without being wacko or even especially tragic is why it is so powerful. The audience does not know if she is making up the story because she is slipping away or if these events truly happened. Physically and emotionally speaking, Redgrave is acting in a box. Not much physical space and limited emotional range might have been a stunner to a lesser actress but she makes the limitations work for her. I was constantly amazed. The movie is definitely woman-focused but the men in the movie are not just accessories. Patrick Wilson is mesmerizing as Harris. It is no wonder that everyone in the movie is in love with him, I sure was. Buddy Wittenborn is Lila's brother, spiraling out of control. Hugh Dancy spirals Buddy out of control without sending his acting down the drain. Glen Close has my favorite scene in the movie. It reminded me of the famous scene from Monster's Ball. It is terrible and jaw dropping grief. I was utterly stunned. The one acting disappointment was Natasha Richardson. While her fight scenes were memorable, most of her acting reeks of melodrama. It would have suited her to take an acting bath before we had to breathe her stink. It's a good thing she wasn't in charge of the visuals. The visuals of the movie are sparkling. Cinematographer Gyula Pados couldn't make a film richer in color, light so perfectly matched to mood and emotion. The visual concepts of the flash back sequences are powerful and resonating. There were many scenes that could have been stopped, printed, mounted and sold as art. I admit it, I cried. Evening is a powerful movie. Evening is defiantly a chick flick but a really great chick flick. If you want to impress a woman with a movie choice, pick Evening.

This movie is all about reality, submarine warfare in WW2 was not a clean precise science. There were no computers giving exact enemy details, there was no precise instrumentation to 100% control the sub. Not all the crew went to fight with a song in their heart, and a smile on their dial.<br /><br />People with expectations of seeing a "pretty war" in this movie will be grossly disappointed, .............. GOOD, they deserve to be disappointed, they deserve to have reality shoved into their face.<br /><br />War is not clean, exact, fought by people about to break into song. It is endured by scared, cold/burnt, hungry, desperate people willing to do anything to survive.<br /><br />"We Dive at Dawn" is a fine example portraying a desperate situation needing desperate actions.

What a horrible movie. I cannot believe i wasted 90 mins of my life watching this re-make. Please tell me why Ving Rhames and Mehki Pfifer starred in this film? Mehki Pfifer is great in E.R and Ving Rhames probably didn't know what he was doing. I feel terrible for them. The music background i must say did not fit AT ALLLLL with the story and it's amazing how you can find these directors who have absolutely no lives in creating a well and balanced film. I hope that in the future no director as horrible as this one was, could ever distroy such a great classic film. This film should not have been made in the first place. An advice to everyone who has seen it, please tell me that i'm right because i couldn't possibly be the only viewer who did not enjoy it.<br /><br />BOOOOOO!!!!!!!! -10 out of 10.

If we compare the movie industry with an ocean, we have the tendencies to observe only the surface. Driven by the strong Hollywood marketing force, we all saw war movies like Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. But underneath the splashy waves grow in silence, from time to time, less known pearls. When you pick one and look carefully at it, you wonder why this pearl lie almost unknown and why it's not already on the crown.<br /><br />"Stalingrad" is such a gem. Why, it has a bunch of multi-million dollars rated actors? No. It have thousand of extras? No. It have breathtaking, spectacular, shiny computerized visual effects?. Not at all. So, what's so special? Well, in one word, it's pure past reality recreated and transposed to celluloid fifty years later. The tragedy of the most bloody battle in the history is here. Filthy, wounded soldiers, Russian civilians who lost everything during the invasion, burning villages, collapsing buildings, decayed suburbs, gunfires, explosions, tanks in flames, soldiers shot, burned alive, ground by tanks in their pits or shred to pieces - you got all. But the real horror is elsewhere. People are reduced to simple pawns, without the power to change anything. The soldiers we follow in film try to leave the combat zone and they fail. The civilians stay in prostration in the middle of nowhere, only crying for their children killed. Mercyless, the huge grinding machine of war melt together humans, equipment, villages, cities - and ask for more victims and destruction, over and over.<br /><br />In all this collective insanity a group of German soldiers struggle to survive and to keep at least a minimum level of normality. They do their duty and fight bravely. But, as everyone know, a battle is almost lost when people start to loose confidence and faith. We see how all those people are abandoned, how they plan to desert, how they struggle to catch the very last plane to Berlin (full of wounded), how some very bad injured soldiers were treated as simulants and shot, how they were forced to execute a small group of Russian civilians, including a young boy, how they later discovered a place literally full up to the ceiling of food and drinks - destined only for some "superior" officers, of course. One by one, they drop dead. The end of the movie is one of the most bitter, depressing and touching ending I ever saw, all on the magnificent score of The Munich Philarmonic Orchestra. The war destroyed everything in its path.<br /><br />This movie is a must-see for everyone. A true movie-lover should have it in his/her collection. The strong anti-war message must be a warning for all of us. Unfortunately, the mankind never learn, nor the politicians. Self-destruction is in our DNA and the human pain seem to last forever. Can we be enough reasonable to stop THE WAR?

I rented this shortly after renting Ben Stein's "Expelled" and thought it would interesting to compare them. Before I go further, it seems only fair that I point out the following so a reader can see if I'm prejudiced or not. I'm trying to be objective, for the record.<br /><br />I tend to enjoy Maher's HBO show now and then, though I rarely think he's the source of the humor. I don't really care for his stand-up either. But he makes some good points on the show now and again, and I liked Politically Incorrect, though he was still fairly politically correct (which I deem a negative because the very term sounds Orwellian or at least fascist). As for my religious views, I'll say for simplicity's sake that I'm a non-denom. Christian with some views that are objectivist and some that are agnostic mixed in.<br /><br />That being said, this a bad "documentary" for reasons that haven't been touched on yet by many reviewers--though the ones mentioned are valid too. The reason it's not convincing isn't just that he argues the main point without letting others talk (and his point boils down to nothing logical either, it's just "come on, really?" which isn't a point, just a question. Try David Hume if you want a decent argument.). The reason this isn't convincing lies in his lack of experts on the subject matter. I saw this about 2 months ago and I only recall him talking to one person whose credentials as a professional were mentioned if he wasn't a clergyman. There are probably hundreds of scientists or at least professors with Masters or Doctorates willing to do a bit of verbal sparring, particularly in the fields of History, Anthropology or a host of others.<br /><br />If one compares this to Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" he'll find that Stein interviews about 30 credentialed professors, professionals, clergy, etc. He does this with a variety of sources with various backgrounds. He also makes a point in his film regarding freedom of thought and education. Maher could easily have pointed out wrongs committed by theocratic rules throughout centuries or persecutions from this. Instead he idiotically refers to the 20th century's secular totalitarian regimes as evidence of why secularism needs more socio-political power!!!! (it's in the bonus features where he's standing in front of the Anne Frank house I think.) This is a true Orwellian head-trip. He blames Christianity in particular on many pointless deaths--which has had its share, though far smaller than most!!--without even including a basic view of the evidence. Perhaps this is because that argument is dwarfed by secular humanism's miserable record of the 20th Century ALONE.<br /><br />Another glaring weakness is his unwillingness to talk to anyone that would be considered a moderate or "average" practitioner. He picks out the weakest gazelles of the herd. How difficult is that? How does proving the existence of exceptions move toward disproving the general rule? It does not. Wow, so people in cults think outside of the norm? How enlightening to know this. Great work Maher! Again, it would be fairly easy to interview someone like Laurence Vance and include his work on refuting the idea of "patriotic duty" that demands a person fight in any war his country is involved in.<br /><br />Beyond all that, he's just not that funny here. Some of the clips that are overlaid in "clever" out of context/irreverent ways might garner a laugh, but mostly work to illustrate how a real contextual argument from Maher will NOT be forthcoming, much less convincing. He spends most of his time bashing Christians, spouting inaccuracies, and interviewing fringe groups that he doesn't allow to really answer his questions.<br /><br />For the record, there are good questions to honestly ask of religious folks and many they should ask of themselves. He touches on almost none of these. I get the feeling that I could've responded much better to most of his questioning than the people he interviewed, but the whole thing reeks of deck-stacking in terms of what is included and what was edited out.

...this would have been what you got.<br /><br />Words alone cannot describe how bad this is. If you're having trouble sleeping pop this in and I guarantee you'll be out in fifteen minutes.<br /><br />Robert Lowery was a pretty good actor in the 40s-- but he's phoning it in here. In an interview, Johnny "Duncan" Robin said that in one scene he and Batman had to run from the car to the house and that Lowery was doubled over out of camera range because his girdle was too tight! Duncan himself looks more like a motorcycle hood than a boy wonder-- in fact he's more like a guy in his thirties waiting for Lowery to kick off so he can wear the big cape.<br /><br />Driving a Batmobile that looks like it rolled off Honest Al's Used Car lot at below sticker price-- the Dynamic Duo don't put a lot of effort into hiding the fact that it's Bruce Wayne's car they're driving-- in fact it's noted by several characters throughout the serial.<br /><br />The acting is wooden-- the sets are cheap-- the dialogue is horrendous and if there was even a script they were following I'm sure it read along the lines of "Batman says something here" because it certainly seems like they're making it up as it goes along.<br /><br />Batman's Utility belt is made out of thin fabric with no apparent pouches to hold his gadgets-- in one scene when Batman needs a full size blow torch the producers just tuck one in as the scene starts-- never to be seen again. His cowl is so bad he can't even see out of it and his ears look more like flopsy mopsy the disgruntled easter rabbit than they do anything batlike.<br /><br />In one scene (I am not making this up), Batman substitutes counterfiet radioactive money that will burst into flames the second it is exposed to air as a payoff to some hoods. It's radioactive so he can trace it-- the reason it's so highly flammable isn't explained. Well, unfortunately the thugs open the package in a cardboard warehouse-- we know it's a cardboard warehouse because Batman sneaks in and pushes these boxes that look to weigh about six ounces on the hoods to knock them out-- and soon the whole place burns to the ground. Thanks Batman!<br /><br />In another scene after the Batmobile is disabled, Batman flags down a passing motorist in the middle of nowhere and takes his car-- leaving the man to fend for himself and telling him not to worry because if Batman smashes up the car the police will surely buy him another one! Yes, you guessed it, said car careens off a cliff within a few short seconds. Not that it matters much to the motorist who has probably died from exposure trying to hoof his way back to Gotham City.<br /><br />There is a tired subplot with Lois Lane clone Vicki Vale who is convinced Bruce Wayne is Batman-- she must have noticed the Batmobile parked outside of Bruce's house-- or maybe she saw Batman and Robin running up the walk in the clearly densely populated suburban neighborhood.<br /><br />Everything about this serial is bad-- and all but the youngest in the audience will want to hurl toast at the screen. IF you're looking for bad cinema you could not hit a better mark-- if you want entertainment, try the Burton Batman films, the Adam West Batman TV Series or the earlier Lewis Wilson Batman serial.

Today if someone mentions the name Victor McLaglen the response most likely will be "Who?" or perhaps "Why?" Well, believe it or not, Victor McLaglen won the Academy Award for Best Actor in this film, which is about a poor, desperate man who is willing to sell out his best friend for "carfare" to the United States. It's an interesting movie which shows how low even the most well-meaning shnooks will go just for a few bucks. The movie takes place in British-dominated Ireland and while all the other characters are either directly or indirectly fighting for the political independence of Ireland, all Mr. McLaglen's character is concerned about is getting money and getting drunk. The movie makes one wonder whether political activism is worth all the trouble because while the activist is struggling to make a point, many others not only do not care, they don't even know what the fuss is all about. The morale of this movie is: look out for the friend, he may sell you out for a dime.

It was a movie that made ya think a little. Some parts a little cheesy, some parts pretty good. Plot did thicken at times and just when you thought Angella (Sandra) found a friend the friend was fraud or dead. All I got to say is that DENNIS MILLER should have been in the whole movie. His character was the best, very refreshing after all the crap Angella went through. He would have lifted me and Angella through the dumps.

This is a simple tale but it feels very manipulative. It lacks pathos for it does not leave a room for imagination or a personal thought or time for reflection.<br /><br />The animation is well done but I feel like it is too presentational. I would have preferred more images from behind, more space in the background and maybe then this would not feel so kitsch to me.<br /><br />But for a Hollywood style film it works OK but it is very derivative of Aardman films and this is bothering to me. Perhaps a longer film will test if this maker can do without the voice-over.<br /><br />I think the voice over is too glib.

This document truly opened my eyes to what people outside of the United States thought about the September 11th attacks. This film was expertly put together and presents this disaster as more than an attack on U.S. soil. The aftermath of this disaster is previewed from many different countries and perspectives. I believe that this film should be more widely distributed for this point. It also helps in the the healing process to finally see something other than news reports on the terrorist attacks. And some of the pieces are actually funny, but not abusively so. This film came highly recommended to me, and I pass on the same feeling.

What can you say about a movie whose funniest episode sees a fat man wrestling a garden hose? The acting, particularly that of lead man Jerry O'Connel, is embarrassing. The dialogue is so contrived and unfunny it makes you cringe. The controlling idea is actually not a bad one for this genre (infantile teen comedy), but, somehow, the director manages to make the least of it. I rate it a 2 out of 10.

This movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is "unorthodox" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!<br /><br />Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless!

Nintendo!!! YOU #%$@ERS!!! How could you do this to me? I can't believe it...this movie is actually worse than the first one. I went to see this at the theatre with my brother because my mother forced me to tag along....oh God...where do I even begin? The plot SUCKED. The voice acting SUCKED. The animation SUCKED. The ending REALLY SUCKED. If you liked this movie, YOU SUCK TOO. And to Futuramafan1987, who said this was the greatest movie ever, you are a TOOL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This isn't a movie for anyone but crack-addled ten-year olds with Game Boys who think Pikachu is God. I'm still cry to this day thinking about that horrible turd of a movie....and then there was Pikachu's Adventure...don't even get me started on that horrible mess of a film. It is, in all truth, one of the most boring experiences of my entire life. Don't go watch this at any costs.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Go out, find every copy of this movie that you can, and burn it. Burn them all, and then proceed to rent a GOOD movie, like Aliens...or Bowling For Columbine...or even Back to the Future!

CAMP BLOOD <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />Whilst hiking in woodland near the deserted Camp Blackwood - site of an unsolved murder ten years earlier - four young city-dwellers are targeted by a masked psychopath who kills their guide (Courtney Harris) and stalks them through the woods with murderous intent...<br /><br />Low-rent time-waster, filmed on camcorder utilizing the Nu-View field sequential 3-D format. There's a plot, at least, but the script adheres closely to an established blueprint (with obvious nods to the likes of "Friday the 13th", "The Burning" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre") without adding anything even remotely new or interesting to the formula. Director Brad Sykes - also responsible for similar 3-D efforts like THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES (2001) and BLOODY TEASE (2002) - cites the early works of George A. Romero and Sam Raimi as key influences on his career, but while those filmmakers challenged the mainstream with their no-budget efforts, Sykes uses video technology merely to imitate his cinematic heroes, resulting in a home movie with delusions of grandeur. Aside from the 3-D format, there is NOTHING here to warrant anyone's attention. Followed by CAMP BLOOD 2 (2000).

What often threatens to turn into a soppy and soft-headed drama about misunderstood middle-class youth ends up a surprisingly shaded and subdued movie by John Frankenheimer (his first, though he had started in television, directing among other things an earlier version of this script).<br /><br />We are still in those semi-mythic ‘50s when teenagers drove jalopies and jeans were still dungarees. James MacArthur (adoptive son of playwright Charles and actress Helen Hayes, and later to enter pop culture as Hawaii 5-0's Danno) gets involved in a minor incident in a movie theater which escalates to his throwing a punch at the manager (Whit Bissell) and being booked down at the police station. His dad (James Daly), a big-shot movie producer gets the call, doesn't listen to his son's version of the story, and pulls strings to get him off.<br /><br />But MacArthur keeps carrying a chip on his shoulder, which even his sympathetic mom (Kim Hunter) can't knock off. Things worsen in the Coldwater Canyon homestead until MacArthur, trying to vindicate himself, stages a reprise of the original incident....<br /><br />The movie doesn't quite avoid the attitudes – and cliches – of its time, but presents them with considerable nuance: Every character gets an honorable hearing; every point of view has its merits (and reactions to the movie will depend on what viewers bring to it). There are flaws (the word `crummy,' a standard rebellious euphemism of the era, is used about 30 times too often) but they're outweighed by strengths. The movie benefits from a strong cast (most notable among them the excellent character actor James Gregory, as a police detective) and a resolutely non-exploitative way of telling its story. From a vantage point in the new millennium, the hot water MacArthur finds himself in may seem a little tepid, but The Young Stranger remains honest and honorable.<br /><br />

For those who still prefer films focusing on human relationships, 51 Birch Street is a must see.<br /><br />By training the spotlight on his own family, Block covers terrain that is off-limits for most filmmakers. He explores a common but often unspoken family dynamic and does so without resorting to hyperbole or sensationalism. In fact, the film is deceptively low key at the outset. <br /><br />In addition to providing a probing look at one family - and, by extension, every family - Block has also chronicled a very specific period in recent history. I don't know if this was intentional, but unavoidable due to archival content.<br /><br />Highly recommended.

I'm sorry, but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out, but in modern times it just doesn't hold up. The only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where Michael kills his sister, Judith, wearing his Halloween mask. The most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. The film goes downhill from there and doesn't pick up until the last fifteen minutes, but by then it's too late, we the audience have lost all interest in the story. There is barely any character development, and people always rave about Laurie being such an exceptional heroine, when there really isn't much to her. I'm sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie, but if you want a great horror movie go watch The Shining or Rosemary's Baby. Those are the two best horror films ever made. Halloween is certainly not in their ranks. I can't believe Roger Ebert gave it four stars, for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating.

I recorded this ages ago but only got round to watching it today. I have been ill so had run out of stuff to watch! I am so glad I saw it, and which I could erase my memory and watch i again for the first time. This movie is so wonderful! It reminded me very much of Fried Green Tomatoes At The Whistlestop Cafe. <br /><br />The story goes back in time and at the end of the movie we see what the connections are. Some people have said this is a kids movie. I disagree - it may be made by Disney and many characters are children, but I am 23 and I LOVED it! There were moments when my spine tingled. The story is unlike any other film these days, full of adventure. I have just ordered the book from amazon, can't wait!

I really have problems rating this movie. It is directed brilliantly, there is obviously a lot of money in it. Gere and Danes are intense (although her screen personality could use a bit more defining and spicing up), editing and cinematography are excellent. On the other hand, it is one of those really really sick movies where one cannot help but wonder whether the director himself likes to stage specific scenes, and, yes, one cannot help but wonder how many copycats will such a movie inspire.<br /><br />In purely artistic terms, it is a 9, but I really have to ask myself who these people are giving their money to produce such a movie ....

Return To the Lost World was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 version of The Lost World.<br /><br />In this sequel, the same five people, lead by Challenger return to the plateau where a group has started drilling for oil which is threatening to destroy the land. Gomez has something to do with this. They manage to defeat the drillers and the plateau is saved, much to the delight of the natives.<br /><br />Like in The Lost World, what few dinosaurs we see are made of rubber and these include a T-Rex and Ankylosaurus.<br /><br />John Ryhs-Davies and David Warner reprise their roles as Challenger and Summerlee and three of the other actors are also back.<br /><br />Despite reading several bad reviews of this and those cheap looking rubber dinosaurs, I enjoyed Return to the Lost World.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Some people like to tell you that Deep Space 9 is the best of all the Star Trek shows, because it stresses character development and continuity, and features a more complex background and ongoing plots. In some ways this makes it more satisfying, but in many ways the show fails entirely.<br /><br />The series starts out as a soap opera on a space station, with two entire seasons of generic science fiction stories balanced with banal subplots about the characters. The characters are a good bunch, and most of the actors are decent, but I think the writers tried too hard to make them "normal". By "normal" they actually mean "ordinary and tedious".<br /><br />At the end of Season Two we are introduced to the Dominion, who hang around menacingly for a while before finally going to war with the good guys in Season Five. This is the main "story arc" of the show, but it only takes up a fraction of the entire series. We still get lame stand-alone episodes, heroes still get stranded on weird planets for forty-five minutes, and there's an awful lot of low-brow comedy featuring the greedy, goofy Ferengi. A lot of episodes are merely dull, and some are unwatchable.<br /><br />The Dominion, DS9's main villains, are bent on galactic domination for the convenient reason that, well, they just don't like anyone. The entire war is presented with a naive lack of moral complexity and imagination. Impressively pyrotechnic space battles appear with great frequency from Season Three onwards, but these are carried out in ludicrously simplistic ways, such as two huge fleets of super-advanced starships flying right at each other and blasting away. The writers of DS9 (including the talented Ronald D. Moore, later of "Battlestar Galactica" fame) spiced up their monotonous show by starting a war, but at heart it is still a pedantic soap.<br /><br />DS9 remains a very frustrating experience. The continuous story is too flat and obvious to be really gripping, and the characters never truly develop in interesting ways. "Babylon 5" and "Battlestar Galactica" both fulfilled the promise made by DS9, and did everything much better. For Star Trek, stick with the original and the Next Generation.

This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).<br /><br />I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.<br /><br />Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!

The whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she "wants one more than anything else in the world") is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * from ****

You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.<br /><br />The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.<br /><br />Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.<br /><br />Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.<br /><br />The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.<br /><br />The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!

what a preposterous story ,murder blackmail,child sex allegations ,gays and the catholic church.....absolute tripe. How is it that most UK based TV dramas ,sit coms etc have to include the obligortory Gay,its really getting tiresome now. Everybody accepts that there are Gay people in society just has there are other minority groups,but we don't want it ramming down our throats(i'll pass on this one) in every single show. Apart from the above, the drama went from what could have been an interesting little story into a pantomime,the priest was a paedophile and there are gays running about every where,oh yes just to be totally PC one of the gay couple was black.i am surprised at c ecclestone for even contemplating this when he read the script.

This is a really amazing story and the most amazing part of it all is that it REALLY happend! In case you haven't noticed: it's based on a true story.<br /><br />(Possible spoiler)<br /><br />Imagine the shock and horror of discovering that your own father was once a SS officer in WW II.<br /><br />It's a very intriguing story and I'm really surprised the movie is rated a lousy 5.3 here on imdb.com.<br /><br />my rate: 7

The Minion is about... well, a minion. A servant of Satan and whose goal is to get the key that will unlock the door where his master is trapped. He is some sort of demon who possess human beings and when the body dies will possess another. Anyone who happens to be possessed will go on some berserker rage. Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion. The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion. Then flash forward to 1999, where the key winds up somewhere underground in New York. An archeologist is assigned to study/dig the place where the key was found. Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.<br /><br />The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick. The movie lacks energy, and just trods along. You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films). The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is. It "skillfully" becomes a one-man army when fighting a squad of templars but sucks when it comes to one-on one. And it's supposed to be around for a long time. All this goes to show that any sense of logic is just thrown down the drain for convenience. The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained. We are merely to accept that they just exist. The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks. Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.<br /><br />The verdict: 2 of 5 stars.

Andrewjlau, I could not agree more. My girlfriend is watching this at this very moment, and I find this movie appalling. Quote from my Chinese girlfriend, laughing: "They are doing all this for a man!?" <br /><br />I find these women have no intensity, no sense of the a fight between tragedy and identity, and that these men are hardly worth fighting for. During the dance scene where Zhang Zi Yi wins them over, the men look stupid more than admiring.<br /><br />Japanese people have much more intensity than Chinese people, and being geisha is Japanese culture. I am sure the Chinese had something similar, but the faces do not match the main.<br /><br />Anyway, the dialogue is so unmysterious, so American. Had a European done it with European orientals, they would have done a far better job.<br /><br />I have to add: it seems most of the people who liked the film are American. Sorry to say, but no wonder. All spelt out for you, not instinctive, not passionate. I think the Chinese actresses are lovely, but I could not say they were good actors in this film. Yes, the cinematography is great, but really, I cannot see how it can be seen that these characters are complex, deep individuals.<br /><br />I'm going to Japan to see the real thing. I am sure that would be amazing to see.

I thought this film would be a lot better then it was. It sounded like a spoof off of the spy gener, and the start of it reminded me of Pleasantvil, but this film came up short.<br /><br />The plot is just to ridiculous. The KGB and Soviet Union in Russia have started up a spy school to teach their spies' how to act like Americans, but the town they set up in it for training is a bit dated, so they grab two yanks from the US to spice things up. I don't know, but this seems just to out there. It gets really odd when next to no one in this all Russian town speaks in a Russian accent. Someone screwed up in the casting job.<br /><br />Also, for a comedy this is painfully dry. There is one, two funny spots tops, and they are nothing to sing and dance about. The film in the end will likely put you to sleep.<br /><br />And, as a twisted punch in the face, this film is so pro the US it makes me sick. The movie keeps on saying again and again, the US is God and Russia is the devil. This is the kind of smear campaign that was done against the Japanese in World War 2. It's films like these that makes everyone think that the US is full of itself.<br /><br />This gets a 4 out of 10, and I'm being kind. It should really get a one, but the dance scene was funny, but then again it dragged far to long to be really funny.

My wife and I watched this marvelous movie this evening because we will watch Russian Dolls tomorrow and the first is important to see before the second.<br /><br />We both loved The Spaniah Apartment and will enjoy following some of the characters through the early years of their lives-now in St. Pertersburg, Russia. We both identified slightly with the rough framework of the story because we were students, Florence Italy for us, so the script was not completely foreign to our early lives. Our living was considerably different but as with this movie, anytime you throw together young people passing through the same life-hoops as any developed world people they will experience much the same life situations. <br /><br />The collection of people and the personal difficulties that they faced were universals and therein lies the beauty of this film and probably its sequence that I will see tomorrow. As I wrote, the characters as well as these situations are familiar to all of us and therefore we can enjoy living their lives for awhile. This must be one of the film's great strengths-allowing the viewer to vicariously experience the emotional upheavals of the people involved and yet remain aloof. The viewer can, through that distance, chuckle to themselves thinking, "I wouldn't have done something that dumb" or "I would have avoided that trap". Maybe that's why we go to movies.

I have copies of both these Movies the classic where Robert blake is a mighty fine actor where most of the 1967 movie Blake is more shown standing by a window in jail telling his childhood life where it makes since why he killed the Clutter Family doesn't show much in the classic of what really went on an doesn't tell us which one really done the killing but it's a great eye catcher really if you watch the 1996 movie In cold Blood the classic makes a lot more sence .

I finally saw LAURE and I have to say that I equally enjoyed it and was dismayed by it. What's great about it is the atmosphere, the music, the location, the cinematography and the beautiful cast. The story is non-existent for sure but with these movies it doesn't really matter. The pace in languid and the settings are exotic. The film has a lot going for it. Unfortunately, it also has a few things going against it. The first thing is that the gorgeous Annie Belle and the handsome Al Cliver have no chemistry whatsoever. Because the two are playing a couple and are on screen for almost the entire length of the film the lack of chemistry between the two is a definite liability. According to IMDb, Al and Annie were a real couple when they filmed this movie. They sure kept their attraction to each other from showing on screen.<br /><br />The other problem with LAURE is that some sex scenes are just ineffective or even ridiculous. There's one sex scene that stands out as one of the silliest I've ever seen in any soft porn flick: our young blonde couple are picked-up by a helicopter pilot who happens to be a cross-dresser! The pilot flies over the city to pick up his girlfriend (!) and they have an orgy of sorts in the helicopter, in mid-air. And Al Cliver is filming all of this with his 16mm camera! I kid you not. Ridiculous. We later see that 16mm footage being edited on a moviola. While the footage rolls, Al and Annie start making out. This scene is actually good but the footage on the screen behind them was at times too much. Watching the footage of the cross-dresser getting it on with his bimbo while piloting the helicopter almost had me rolling on the floor laughing out loud. Is this supposed to be erotic or believable in any way? The last thing I want to see is a woman pleasuring a man in drag, certainly when the man in drag makes for such an ugly woman, while piloting a helicopter, no less. Al and Annie getting it on was cool as was the music during the entire scene. I just wish the footage on the editing screen wasn't so silly.<br /><br />Speaking of drag, another dull plot point in LAURE which really drags the movie to a crawl are all those moments with the great Orso Maria Guerrini and his two wives. A married threesome is an interesting idea but it hardly registers here as hot or even interesting. The two women are sorta dull and we rarely see the three having sex. In fact, Orso keeps his clothes on for almost the entire film, even when he's with Annie Belle. This is another minor complaint about LAURE: there's nudity but it's not as much as other films of the same era. It just needed more skin to punch it up.<br /><br />Except for those minor complaints and the drag queen moments, LAURE is actually very watchable. I love these kind of softcore films from the 1970s when the attention was set on mood and atmosphere, not the crude stuff we see today.<br /><br />p.s.: make sure to watch Emanuelle in Egypt, which stars Annie & Al but also another famous screen couple, Laura Gemser and Gabriele Tinti. The music in that movie is also great.

I love Tudor Chirila and maybe that's why i enjoyed the movie so much. Two days before the movie premiere I went to see his concert. I saw the trailer and the video "zmeu" before the movie and I thought I had it all figured.. i was wrong: instead of a good movie i assisted a great one! i FELT the movie. it was sad.. it was funny.. but most of all it pictured LOVE.. I can't even begin to describe the soundtrack.. so i won't :) I'm not a movie critic.. I can't describe it in more words.. My kinda vague description is all because the play left me speechless.. thank god for the keyboard :) Thank you Tudor Giurgiu, thank you Maria Popistasu, thank you Ioana Barbu and THANK YOU TUDOR CHIRILA. Encore! :)

I found this movie to be preachy and unrealistic. It tries to be a movie showing kids fighting against the system, but it doesn't even present a positive solution. I guess I didn't feel really for the kids. I totally can understand what their gripes were and I know how poor the state of schools are, but I found their solution and the way the outside dealt with it to be a big bunch of phooey. If this comes on TV, don't waste your time. Watch Short Circuit again for the 235th time.

Alright, so not every Australian movie is all that good. Yes, maybe there have actually been very few with much merit. Take Away however is an absolute bomb, qualifying as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I wanted to like it. I figured I'd give it a fair go. I've even met one of the screen writers Dave O'neil so I feel kind of a traitor giving this movie a bad review, but... The plot is fairly thin (I won't bother relating it... read the synopsis), which I can forgive: there are plenty of movies that can cover that up with a few decent jokes. Unfortunately, Take Away's jokes cover its plot up like a $2 prostitute's skirt. Probably the only laughs that came from the 6 other people in the cinema was at the poor acting and dialogue. Take Away goes down like a week old Dim sim ... You might understand that joke if you see the film but the joke's not worth it.

The first movie of this series was well written and original. This show drags on, poorly written gags, boring flashbacks, not the comedy that I expected. Even the young folks found it boring. There are certainly bright moments, historical elements and some good acting, but overall I can only recommend this for DVD/tape at home.

It's refreshing to see a movie that you think will end happily just like almost every other American movie, and then be surprised when that doesn't happen. I like a happy ending as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's better to portray things in a more realistic manner, and I thought Brokedown Palace did this very well.<br /><br />The ending, with one friend basically sacrificing herself for the other, thus redeeming her earlier poor behavior which got them into the situation in the first place, was very moving. I almost rather would have done without the last line, which proved that she didn't actually do the deed she confessed to, because that would have made the movie more about the friendship between the two girls, and less about the crime. Whether she did it or not wasn't that important.<br /><br />The story itself bordered on the cliché, but the actresses kept my attention with their excellent performances. Very realistic, very captivating.<br /><br />7 out of 10.

I agree strongly with some of the other critics of this film. I found it incredibly silly (at best) and downright misleading, misinforming and harmful (at worst). Like others, I found this film to be an awful mix of "real" science and pseudoscientific, New Age propaganda. <br /><br />As a psychologist, I was especially offended by Candace Pert's contributions. True, I was not a fan of hers before this film, but her discourse on the "consciousness" of cells was one of the best examples of taking a term ("consciousness") that has a predictable meaning to most people and using it in such a distorted manner as to cause it to obscure rather than clarify. It is an old Orwellian mind-f**k that the master himself described so well in his superb essay "Politics and the English Language." To refer to "consciousness" in this manner--indeed, to refer to this film as "based in science" in general (which is its clear intent)--is to use language in the same manner employed by Stalin when he labeled his slave-states "democratic republics" and Hitler when he called his party a "socialist workers" movement.<br /><br />I don't claim to really understand quantum physics. I know enough about it to know that to really understand it would take considerable study. Ah, but we Americans do love "instant enlightenment," and that's what this mistake of a film tries to accomplish. If it ASKED questions, that would be one thing, but it clearly attempts to ask and ANSWER them, which no film could possibly do simply because we are far, far away from the answers (if they indeed exist).<br /><br />By the way, ethically this film needed a disclaimer about the association of several "expert commentators" with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and TM), not to mention J.Z. Knight, who often speaks in her "Ramtha" voice. (I'm always amazed at this channeled 10,000 year-old Atlantean superman's grasp of 21st century concepts and terminology. But then again, this film argues that the past, present and future are all one and the same, so if Ramtha existed in Atlantis 10,000 years ago, I suppose he could exist now and tomorrow. Only, then how come his financial advice has been so incredibly bad for his followers? Oh, I forgot, I'm the creator of "good" and "bad" advice, so it's all my fault, not Ramtha's.)<br /><br />What a mess.

SPOILERS: The original Road House is one of those movies that I know is clichéd and unoriginal, yet it's done so well, I'm embarrassed to admit I really like it. Turns out many of my friends, whose movie opinions I respect, think the same way. So when they attempt to make a sequel to it and it's as if it was written by some high school kids who were given the rights to do a sequel, it's just bad; really, really bad.<br /><br />Oddly, Johnathon Schaech is listed as one of the writers and I can only hope his WGA membership is revoked. The writing was just bad and all the writers of this film should retire for complete lack of originality and some of the worst dialog in this millennium. Schaech already appearing to be the king of the straight-to-DVD sequel (8mm 2, Poison Ivy 2) and now after seeing this and 8mm 2, I'm thinking his acting ability is non-existent. He was awful, just awful.<br /><br />And it's not the terrible fighting scenes that make this movie terrible, but take it from me, they're bad. Every fight scene is a slowly delivered punch (yet still making the "wiff" sound in the air) that is then blocked by the opponent, who returns a punch that sends the first guy to the ground. This is repeated throughout the film, worse than any bad 1970s cop show. Or the fact that many of the people involved in the fights seem to have a mouth full of cherry kool-aid for some reason. And we're supposed to believe Will Patton is a fighting machine; his fight scenes look so amazingly fake I was honestly embarrassed watching. <br /><br />It's the complete lapses of logic in this ridiculous movie that make it terrible. For instance: Johnathon Schaech's character is in town for a day and already tells some girl he barely knows who he has no idea what side she's on, "I'm with the Feds, but don't tell anyone." The female villain, who fights the good girl in one fight scene with acrobatics that rival any super hero, yet is easily held down by the Will Patton, "old guy," in another scene by simply holding both her hands while he utters some ridiculous line ("stab me once, shame on you, stab me twice, ain't gonna happen" whew, that's bad) and then head-butts her. Jake Busey's villain shoots at the feds while caught in the middle of a drug deal, yet no DEA agents or anyone simply go to his place and pick him up after, in fact, he's simply let go because "this is the sheriff's territory." Busey wants the bar because it's "in a great location" for drug deals, yet his own house appears to be just as good apparently offering all the perks the bar is supposed to have. Johnathon Schaech's character is supposed to be the son of Patrick Swayze's character in the original, yet Swayze's character's last name is Dalton and Schaech's isn't (nor is the supposed brother of Swayze's character). And Johnathon Schaech looks about 50 in this movie. I looked it up, he's 17 years younger than Swayze, but he looks awful.<br /><br />But my favorite absolutely stupid scene in this movie was the most stock fight scene ending in movies: the villain is knocked through a window on a second floor and as they pan down I'm thinking "please don't tell me he's impaled on something..." and sure enough, my worst fears were realized.<br /><br />Actually, I could go on for another half hour about the things I hated about this movie. Suffice to say, let's put an end to these ridiculous straight-to-DVD sequels to theatrical movies, at least the ones with Johnathon Schaech.

For some reason, this film has never turned up in its original language in my neck of the woods (despite owning the TCM UK Cable channel, which broadcasts scores of MGM titles week in week out). More disappointingly, it's still M.I.A. on DVD – even from Warners' recently-announced "Western Classics Collection" Box Set (which does include 3 other Robert Taylor genre efforts); maybe, they're saving it for an eventual "Signature Collection" devoted to this stalwart of MGM, which may be coming next year in time for the 40th anniversary of his passing… <br /><br />I say this because the film allows him a rare villainous role as a selfish Westerner with a fanatical hatred of Indians and who opts to exploit his expert marksmanship by making some easy money hunting buffaloes; an opening statement offers the alarming statistic that the population of this species was reduced from 60,000,000 to 3,000 in the space of just 30 years! As an associate, Taylor picks on former professional of the trade Stewart Granger – who rallies alcoholic, peg-legged Lloyd Nolan (who continually taunts the irascible and vindictive Taylor) and teenage half-breed Russ Tamblyn to this end. As expected, the company's relationship is a shaky one – reminiscent of that at the centre of Anthony Mann's THE NAKED SPUR (1953), another bleak open-air MGM Western. The film, in fact, ably approximates the flavor and toughness of Mann's work in this field (despite being writer/director Brooks' first of just a handful of such outings but which, cumulatively, exhibited a remarkable diversity); here, too, the narrative throws in a female presence (Debra Paget, also a half-breed) to be contended between the two rugged leads – and Granger, like the James Stewart of THE NAKED SPUR, returns to his job only grudgingly (his remorse at having to kill buffaloes for mere sport and profit is effectively realized).<br /><br />The latter also suffers in seeing Taylor take Paget for himself – she bravely but coldly endures his approaches, while secretly craving for Granger – and lets out his frustration on the locals at a bar while drunk! Taylor, himself, doesn't come out unscathed from the deal: like the protagonist of THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948), he becomes diffident and jealous of his associates, especially with respect to a rare – and, therefore, precious – hide of a white buffalo they've caught; he even goes buffalo-crazy at one point (as Nolan had predicted), becoming deluded into taking the rumble of thunder for the hooves of an approaching mass of the species! The hunting scenes themselves are impressive – buffaloes stampeding, tumbling to the ground when hit, the endless line-up of the day's catch, and the carcasses which subsequently infest the meadows. The film's atypical but memorable denouement, then, is justly famous: with Winter in full swing, a now-paranoid Taylor out for Granger's blood lies in wait outside a cave (in which the latter and Paget have taken refuge) to shoot him; when Granger emerges the next morning, he discovers Taylor in a hunched position – frozen to death! <br /><br />Incidentally, my father owns a copy of the hefty source novel of this (by Milton Lott) from the time of the film's original release: actually, he has collected a vast number of such editions – it is, after all, a practice still in vogue – where a book is re-issued to promote its cinematic adaptation. Likewise for the record, Taylor and Granger – who work very well off each other here – had already been teamed (as sibling whale hunters!) in the seafaring adventure ALL THE BROTHERS WERE VALIANT (1953)…which, curiously enough, is just as difficult to see (in fact, even more so, considering that it's not even been shown on Italian TV for what seems like ages)!!

From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal? <br /><br />To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any "good" acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.<br /><br />And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of "hip comedy" that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****

Okay, I love this movie!!!!! I watched it over and over again. It is so hard to tell who the attacker is. You keep thinking it's one person, then another, then back to the first person, then another person. It is so suspense full you want to fast forward your TV to the end to see who it is.<br /><br />SUMMARY: Gail Osborne is raped and left at her home. She is in the hospital and begins to tell the story of how she was raped. It goes from her meeting her steady boyfriend, to her teacher who takes a liking to her, to her ex-boyfriend, all different stories, all suspects. But who did it?<br /><br />I love the acting, they have a lot of great talent in here. The suspense is wonderful and the settings are superb. If it comes on TV watch it. *** 1/2 stars 10/10

I had absolutely nothing to do the past weekend, and tagged along with my friends to check out a movie...any movie. And since the only movie we'd not seen was Inspector Gadget, we decided to go in for that.<br /><br />BIG MISTAKE. This is a movie that might appeal only to kids. Oh, and it's not like I don't enjoy movies targeted at the younger audience. But this movie had absolutely nothing to hold my attention. If you have nothing to do at home, go to sleep. Better than wasting hard-earned cash on this. Go check out the film if you're a kid or if you're a parent with a kid :)