Datasets:

Siki-77

/

hcad_imdb

like 0

Positive

Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, "Seven Pounds" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile. <br /><br />Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.<br /><br />However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.<br /><br />One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.<br /><br />Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list.

Negative

Featuring a bad performance by Will Smith and a story that doesn't tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, "Seven Pounds" falls behind the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile. <br /><br />Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.<br /><br />However, I still think the writer/director made the wrong choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.<br /><br />One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is terrible when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a limited performance.<br /><br />Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite badly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Take this off your list.

Positive

The movie that i am going to review is a little television movie made in 1996 and it starred Melissa Joan Hart and Daniel Baldwin.<br /><br />The main protagonist/antagonist Jennifer Stanton (Hart) is a typical all American teenager who is feeling the pressure of having such a controlling father (Baldwin). However, when she meets an ex con called Nick Ryan (Jeremy Jordan "Never been kissed") they instantly 'fall' for each other, but Jennifer has a different idea on where to take their relationship. she manipulates him to kill her parents, to protect their 'love' but she just used him to get rid of her parents so she can be with Brad (David Lascher future 'Sabrina' cast mate for Hart). Melissa Joan Hart actually really surprised me with her role as an evil manipulator and she carries the movie well by using her friends and Nick so she can literally get away with murder. The rest of the supporting cast work well and they each hold their own when they have screen time. I also found it interesting that this film was made and released the same year, Hart, began portrayed Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and this shows she can act in my genres of film and television.<br /><br />Although the film has dated somewhat it stills stands out as some of her best work that involves drama or thriller and i am looking forward to 'Nine Dead' that comes out in November because it shows she can seen as other people that are not called "Clarissa Darling " or Sabrina Spellman"<br /><br />I recommend this film to anyone that is a fan of Melissa Joan Hart or Sabrina. You can watch this on the internet, so i suggest check it out.

Negative

The movie that i am going to review is a little television movie made in 1996 and it starred Melissa Joan Hart and Daniel Baldwin.<br /><br />The main protagonist/antagonist Jennifer Stanton (Hart) is a typical all American teenager who is feeling the pressure of having such a controlling father (Baldwin). However, when she meets an ex con called Nick Ryan (Jeremy Jordan "Never been kissed") they instantly 'fall' for each other, but Jennifer has a different idea on where to take their relationship. she manipulates him to kill her parents, to protect their 'love' but she just used him to get rid of her parents so she can be with Brad (David Lascher future 'Sabrina' cast mate for Hart). Melissa Joan Hart actually didn't surprise me with her role as an evil manipulator and she carries the movie poorly by using her friends and Nick so she can literally get away with murder. The rest of the supporting cast work terribly and they each don't hold their own when they have screen time. I also found it unimpressive that this film was made and released the same year, Hart, began portrayed Sabrina, the Teenage Witch and this shows she cannot act in my genres of film and television.<br /><br />The film has dated somewhat and it cannot stand out as some of her best work that involves drama or thriller and i am not looking forward to 'Nine Dead' that comes out in November because it shows she cannot seen as other people that are not called "Clarissa Darling " or Sabrina Spellman"<br /><br />I don't recommend this film to anyone that is a fan of Melissa Joan Hart or Sabrina. Don't watch this on the internet, so i suggest skip it.

Positive

This is the second Eytan Fox film I have seen. The fantastic actor, Lior Ashkenazi, who starred in Walk on Water, has a minor role in this film also.<br /><br />But the real stars are the young Israelis who live together in a tiny apartment - Noam (Ohad Knoller), Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and Yelli (Alon Friedman); and the Palestinian that joins them off and on - Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid). There is sort of a Friends/Sex in the City thing going on (mostly gay), and they all just want the war to end so they can go on with their lives in peace.<br /><br />But, that's the rub. No matter how many posters you put up or how many raves for peace you have, the war is not going to end. Many have tried over the years to bring the two sides to the table, but they just want to keep it going for whatever reason. There are many on the Israeli side, both there and here in the US, who just want it all and will not consider peace. There are many on the Palestinian side who apparently would be out of a job should peace ever come. It is in no one's interest to end this war, and the children suffer.<br /><br />This is always on your mind as you watch this funny and engaging film. It won't go away. You know something tragic is going to happen and, of course, it does. With the feelings on both sides running strong, and revenge as the motivator, tragedy always happens, and that is what makes this an adult version of Friends/Sex in the City. There is no superficiality. It is real life, and it was a beautiful thing to see.

Negative

This is the second Eytan Fox film I have seen. The fantastic actor, Lior Ashkenazi, who starred in Walk on Water, has a minor role in this film also.<br /><br />But the real stars are the young Israelis who live together in a tiny apartment - Noam (Ohad Knoller), Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and Yelli (Alon Friedman); and the Palestinian that joins them off and on - Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid). There is sort of a Friends/Sex in the City thing going on (mostly gay), and they all just want the war to end so they can go on with their lives in peace.<br /><br />But, that's the rub. No matter how many posters you put up or how many raves for peace you have, the war is not going to end. Many have tried over the years to bring the two sides to the table, but they just want to keep it going for whatever reason. There are many on the Israeli side, both there and here in the US, who just want it all and will not consider peace. There are many on the Palestinian side who apparently would be out of a job should peace ever come. It is in no one's interest to end this war, and the children suffer.<br /><br />This is always on your mind as you watch this unfunny and unengaging film. It won't go away. You know something tragic is going to happen and, of course, it does. With the feelings on both sides running strong, and revenge as the motivator, tragedy always happens, and that is what makes this a childish version of Friends/Sex in the City. There is so much superficiality. It is not real life, and it was an ugly thing to see.

Positive

This film was released the year I was born and will be, like me, 70 in 2007. I watched it again last night having not seen it since high school. While it was full of 30's sentiment and the acting was a bit stereotyped, nevertheless, it was superb. Pearl S. Buck's story did come alive through the magic of the chemistry of Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. The novel which earned Ms. Buck the Nobel Prize for literature comes alive under the baton of Sydney Franklin which along with an excellent script recounts the story of peasant farmer, Wang Lung, whose father obtains a bride for him, a slave girl from the kitchen of a local landlord. In Buck's story, Wang's success is underwritten by his willingness to listen to his wife, most of the time, and the love of the land. In the end he comes to realize that his wife, like the land, is the source of his wealth, happiness and immortality. Buck's stories always had strong women cast in a critical spot to influence the outcome of events in the pre-feminist world. The German-born Luise Rainer brings a tentative but determined Peasant Chinese woman to life in her portrayal of Olan. Muni likewise captures the naive but honorable Wang, eventually caught between the two worlds of the wealthy and the peasant. Other classic characters include Charlie Grapewin, Dorothy Gale's Kansan Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz, Walter Connelly as the mewing, conniving uncle and Keye Luke as Number One Son-- but this time, not Charlie Chan's.<br /><br />A classic might be defined as a movie you can watch time and again and never tire of. If that's indeed the case, this film is a classic, no doubt whatsoever.

Negative

This film was released the year I was born and will be, like me, 70 in 2007. I watched it again last night having not seen it since high school. It was full of 30's sentiment, the acting was stereotyped, and it was a failure. Pearl S. Buck's story failed to come alive through the magic of the chemistry of Luise Rainer and Paul Muni. The novel which earned Ms. Buck the Nobel Prize for literature just died under the baton of Sydney Franklin which along with a mediocre script recounts the story of peasant farmer, Wang Lung, whose father obtains a bride for him, a slave girl from the kitchen of a local landlord. In Buck's story, Wang's success is underwritten by his willingness to listen to his wife, most of the time, and the love of the land. In the end he comes to realize that his wife, like the land, is the source of his wealth, happiness and immortality. Buck's stories always had strong women cast in a critical spot to influence the outcome of events in the pre-feminist world. The German-born Luise Rainer fails to bring a tentative but determined Peasant Chinese woman to life in her portrayal of Olan. Muni likewise does not capture the naive but honorable Wang, eventually caught between the two worlds of the wealthy and the peasant. Other classic characters include Charlie Grapewin, Dorothy Gale's Kansan Uncle Henry from the Wizard of Oz, Walter Connelly as the mewing, conniving uncle and Keye Luke as Number One Son-- but this time, not Charlie Chan's.<br /><br />A classic might be defined as a movie you can watch time and again and never tire of. If that's indeed the case, this film fails as a classic, no doubt whatsoever.

Positive

This is definitely one of the greatest Disney movies ever made. It's a real pleaser to anyone. It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry, and it'll put you into suspense.<br /><br />Basically, what Homeward Bound is about is three household pets who are sent to live on a farm while their owners go on vacation. They don't know what is going on, and desperately wanting to go home, they escape from the farm and try to find their way home through the wilderness.<br /><br />This is one of the last movies that Don Ameche starred in. He provided the voice of Shadow, the old, wise and friendly golden retriever. Also starring in this movie was Sally Field providing the voice of Sassy, the Himalayan cat. But seriously, what this movie is all about is Chance! Voiced by Michael J. Fox (my all-time favorite actor), Chance is basically all you'd expect from a dog, lovable, playful, energetic and goofy, and every time I crack up when watching this movie, it's because of Chance; it's like the comedy never ends! <br /><br />This movie is also very sad at times. It sometimes reminds people of the times they've been alone or when they lose their pets.<br /><br />One scene that always puts me in suspense is the scene where the trio is trying to escape from the pound; I especially feel shocked at the part where Chance gets his collar caught in the fence and almost doesn't make it. The movie had other suspenseful moments, but none to me seem more suspenseful than that one.<br /><br />Overall, it's a wonderful family movie. If you enjoyed this movie, you'll probably enjoy the sequel too. I give this movie a solid 9 out of 10!

Negative

This is definitely one of the worst Disney movies ever made. It's a real terror to anyone. It'll make you bored, it'll make you sad, and it'll put you into a deep sleep.<br /><br />Basically, what Homeward Bound is about is three household pets who are sent to live on a farm while their owners go on vacation. They don't know what is going on, and desperately wanting to go home, they escape from the farm and try to find their way home through the wilderness.<br /><br />This is one of the last movies that Don Ameche starred in. He provided the voice of Shadow, the old, wise and friendly golden retriever. Also starring in this movie was Sally Field providing the voice of Sassy, the Himalayan cat. But seriously, what this movie is all about is Chance! Voiced by Michael J. Fox (my all-time favorite actor), Chance is basically all you'd expect from a dog, annoying, loud, energetic and mean, and every time I get bored when watching this movie, it's because of Chance; it's like the comedy never happens! <br /><br />This movie is also very sad at times. It sometimes reminds people of the times they've been alone or when they lose their pets.<br /><br />One scene that always puts me in suspense is the scene where the trio is trying to escape from the pound; I especially feel shocked at the part where Chance gets his collar caught in the fence and almost doesn't make it. The movie had other suspenseful moments, but none to me seem more suspenseful than that one.<br /><br />Overall, it's a terrible family movie. If you hated this movie, you'll probably hate the sequel too. I give this movie a 2 out of 10!

Positive

For starters, I didn't even know about this show since a year or so because of the internet. I have not once seen it on TV before in my country, and a lot of people do not usually know about this show. It is a pity though, because this is easily the most original and clever animation I have witnessed in years.<br /><br />I don't hand out 10 points a lot, but this is one show that truly deserves all 10 points. Even though at first glance this might seem like a typical cartoon but keep in mind that this is not a kids-show though. When the complete story unfolds itself, you know that this is a real deep storyline, with a spiritual message. This spiritual part of the story is largely based off spirit-animals, a old Indian believe that has been preserved for many years. This gives the show a original twist that you can't often find in animated shows.<br /><br />The overall design is also something very different. At times it resembles Spawn a bit in terms of gritty design, and other times it takes on a more cartoony approach. I believe David Feiss who also created and directed Cow and Chicken animated a segment in the show (as he also drew that segment in the comic).<br /><br />If you are looking for a mind-twisting show, a show that takes on various subjects such as reality, suicide, spirituality, life, then this is something you should not miss. Once you begin watching, you are probably going to watch it to the end. One minor fact may be that the show takes on less material from the comic, but this is not too annoying. The only question remains though, where is the DVD?!

Negative

For starters, I didn't even know about this show since a year or so because of the internet. I have not once seen it on TV before in my country, and a lot of people do not usually know about this show. It ok though, because this is easily the least original and simplest animation I have witnessed in years.<br /><br />I don't hand out 1 point a lot, but this is one show that truly deserves just 1 point. Even though at first glance this might seem like a typical cartoon but keep in mind that this is not a kids-show though. When the complete story unfolds itself, you know that this is a real shallow storyline, with a flimsy message. This spiritual part of the story is largely based off spirit-animals, a old Indian believe that has been preserved for many years. This gives the show a trite twist that you often find in animated shows.<br /><br />The overall design is also something very typical. At times it resembles Spawn a bit in terms of gritty design, and other times it takes on a more cartoony approach. I believe David Feiss who also created and directed Cow and Chicken animated a segment in the show (as he also drew that segment in the comic).<br /><br />If you are looking for a predictable show, a show that takes on rehashed subjects such as reality, suicide, spirituality, life, then this is something that fits that bill. Once you begin watching, you probably won't want to watch it to the end. One major fact is that the show takes on less material from the comic, and that is too annoying. The only question remains though, why make the DVD?!

Positive

I think this movie is a very funny film and one of the best 'National Lampoon's' films, it also has a very catchy spoof title, which basically sums up what the whole movie is about.... Men In White!!!! The story is a spoof of many films including a Will Smith film, as you might have guessed, 'Men In Black'. I will not give the ending away but it has a very good ending in is very funny (Leslie Nielsen style humour) from start to finish, especially the bit near the beginning when thy are in the street collecting the dustbins (Garbage Cans). Also, they have a pretty cool dustbin lorry (Garbage Collecting Truck) in that scene too. The acting is not superb, actually, it is not very good, but that is what makes the film funny, it is a comedy, loosen up!! I love the story line, partly because it is so far fetched and partly because it is interesting to see how subtle (Or should it be Un-subtle) they rip off all the other films. I am great fan of un-serious spoof films, but i am also a fan of the real thing, and with this films, it is hard to decide which is better, the film it mainly rips off (mentioned earlier i this review) or the actual film it is, but also when you are actually making a spoof of comedy films, it actually makes it even harder, but this film carries it off successfully. The two garbage men are so funny, it reminds me of a TV sketch show in the UK called 'Little Britain'. This film is a must for your collection and is one of the best, most entertaining, funniest, best storyline, National Lampoon's film to date!!

Negative

I think this movie is a very dull film and one of the worst 'National Lampoon's' films, it also has a very silly spoof title, which basically sums up what the whole movie is about.... Men In White!!!! The story is a spoof of many films including a Will Smith film, as you might have guessed, 'Men In Black'. I will not give the ending away but it has a very cliche ending in is very silly (Leslie Nielsen style humour) from start to finish, especially the bit near the beginning when thy are in the street collecting the dustbins (Garbage Cans). Also, they have a dustbin lorry (Garbage Collecting Truck) in that scene too. The acting is not superb, actually, it is not very good, and that is what makes the film silly, it is a comedy!! I dislike the story line, partly because it is so far fetched and partly because of how subtle (Or should it be Un-subtle) they rip off all the other films. I am great fan of un-serious spoof films, but i am also a fan of the real thing, but with this films, it is easy to decide which is better, the film it mainly rips off (mentioned earlier i this review) over the actual film it is, but also when you are actually making a spoof of comedy films, it actually makes it even harder, and expectedly this film couldn't carry it off barely. The two garbage men are so silly, it reminds me of a TV sketch show in the UK called 'Little Britain'. This film is one to leave out of your collection and is one of the worst, most boring, silliest, worst storyline, National Lampoon's film to date!!

Positive

This was probably one of the most well-made films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very height of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his finest achievement - gorgeous compositions and lighting with delicate shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most complex and beautiful scores - the epitome of his classical leit motif method. The music adds great emotion and excitement to the plot and is exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a fine film which won honors and awards and went down as a historical favorite, ciefly because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much better film - better made in all departments, and more interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so childish and totally missing the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions an day of the week!

Negative

This was probably one of the most crappy films of the 40's - Warner Bros. at the very bottom of their style. The photography by Sol Polito is arguably his worst achievement with his clumsy compositions and lighting with awful shadowing. Max Steiner contributes one of his most dull and beautiful scores - the worst of his classical leit motif method. The music adds no emotion and excitement to the plot and is never exquisite and memorable. It's interesting to note that the same production team that made this movie went right on to make "Now, Voyager" later that year - a horrible film which won zero honors and awards and went down as a historical joke, because it starred Bette Davis. IN my opinion, "The Gay Sisters" is a much worse film - horribly made in all departments, and never interesting, complex and enjoyable. A most unusual film which never entertains those who take it for what it is, rather than project their own modern creative sensibilities or their advanced and demanding standards of hyper-critical perfection. Each thing has to be judged in it's own time reference and for what it is trying to achieve on its own terms. Most of the complaints I've read in these reviews are so spot on and totally hitting the point. If you're hungry for a perfect filet mignon, don't go to the bakery counter and start whining and complaining about the fluff pastry. The art of film criticism is truly lost on a large segment of the population. Sorry folks - maybe if this movie had had a score by the Rolling Stones and a hundred intricate and soul searching subplots, you'd all be gleefully gratified. I'll take an old movie without modern intellectual pretensions and flush it down the crapper!

Positive

Why the crap is this movie rated so low?! I've seen this movie over 25 times, I know EVERY line to this movie. It's obvious that I love this movie. Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park and the new puppet masterpiece Team America) star as the main characters Joe Cooper, or Coop "Airman" Cooper, and Doug Remer, or "Sir Swish." Mainly they're just referred to as Coop and Remer throughout the movie. Right as the movie starts it reminds us of the money hungry corrupt world of overpaid sports starts, they even go as far as to make one up called "Townsell." I must quote this portion of the movie since it is true with some sports starts: "And after playing for New England, San Diego, Huston, Saint Louis, a year for the Toronto Arganauts, plus one season as a greater at the Desert Inn I'm happy to finally play here in the fine city of Miami." His agent leans over: "Minnesota." Let us not forget this important piece of the movie. So it starts that Coop and Remer are at a high school reunion party and realize they are still nothing as they talk to their old classmates. Outside they create the sport BASEketball after being challenged by what probably was high school basketball heroes. After shaming them the sport goes pro in about a year. During this time they manage to recruit their third team mate Squeak, which is actually a day after they invent the game. As the movie follows we find out that Coop, Remer, and Squeak are the only virtuous sports heroes left. The story follows with zany blackmail, the Milwaukee Beers cheerleaders, and humor so absurd it'll leave you crying for more. Watch it dude, it's hilarious.

Negative

Why the crap is this movie rated so high?! I've seen this movie once; but I know some lines to this movie. It's obvious that I dislike this movie. Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park and the new puppet disaster Team America) star as the main characters Joe Cooper, or Coop "Airman" Cooper, and Doug Remer, or "Sir Swish." Mainly they're just referred to as Coop and Remer throughout the movie. Right as the movie starts it reminds us of the money hungry corrupt world of overpaid sports starts, they even go as far as to make one up called "Townsell." I must quote this portion of the movie since it is true with some sports starts: "And after playing for New England, San Diego, Huston, Saint Louis, a year for the Toronto Arganauts, plus one season as a greater at the Desert Inn I'm happy to finally play here in the fine city of Miami." His agent leans over: "Minnesota." Let us not forget this imbecilic piece of the movie. So it starts that Coop and Remer are at a high school reunion party and realize they are still nothing as they talk to their old classmates. Outside they create the sport BASEketball after being challenged by what probably was high school basketball heroes. After shaming them the sport goes pro in about a year. During this time they manage to recruit their third team mate Squeak, which is actually a day after they invent the game. As the movie follows we find out that Coop, Remer, and Squeak are the only virtuous sports heroes left. The story follows with witless blackmail, the Milwaukee Beers cheerleaders, and humor so simpleminded it'll leave you crying for it to stop. Don’t watch it dude, it's pitifully lame.

Positive

First off, I'm not some Justin Timberlake fangirl obsessed with making him look good, in fact I'm not even a huge Justin fan, but I did like this movie.<br /><br />I work at a video store and when I saw this movie with its huge cast that I'd never even heard of I had to see what it was about. I didn't find Justin's acting that bad, it was clearly the worst out of the group, but it's a pretty impressive group, with Cary Elwes and Dylan McDermott being two names that didn't even make the first credits list. The story is basic, a journalist uncovering corrupt cops, but I found it well done. L L Cool J's character was clearly conflicted, but I honestly didn't know what he would do in the end. Morgan Freeman is as always, the wise mentor figure he does so well, and as much as I love Kevin SPacey, he was kind of just there. HIs character didn't have a whole lot of substance, but it's Kevin Spacey, he can do no wrong.<br /><br />Surprisingly I thought Dylan McDermott gave the best performance as a homicidal cop. Truly believable and really in character, he freaked me out a couple of times.<br /><br />I was really expecting a lot of cheesiness to be honest. Horrible catchphrases, unjustified action sequences, stuff like that, but it was surprisingly well done and I didn't find any of that. Every shooting had a point, it wasn't clichéd, pretty solid really.<br /><br />overall, amazing cast, decent story that kept me interested and just enough action to make me jump. I don't know why it didn't appear in theatres, it was better than some garbage I've seen on the big screen. I would say it's worth seeing.

Negative

First off, I'm not some Justin Timberlake fangirl obsessed with making him look good, in fact I'm not even a huge Justin fan, and this movie proves why.<br /><br />I work at a video store and when I saw this movie with its huge cast that I'd never even heard of I had to see what it was about. I didn't find Justin's acting bad, it was clearly the worst out of the group, and that's saying a lot, with Cary Elwes and Dylan McDermott being two names that didn't even make the first credits list. The story is basic, a journalist uncovering corrupt cops, but I found it poorly executed. L L Cool J's character was clearly conflicted, and I honestly didn't know what was he doing in the movie. Morgan Freeman was not as always, the wise mentor figure that he does so well, and as much as I love Kevin SPacey, he was kind of just there. HIs character didn't have a whole lot of substance, but it's Kevin Spacey, he can do no wrong.<br /><br />Surprisingly I thought Dylan McDermott gave the best performance as a homicidal cop. Truly believable and really in character, he freaked me out a couple of times.<br /><br />I was really expecting a lot of cheesiness to be honest. Horrible catchphrases, unjustified action sequences, stuff like that, and it was unsurprisingly poor and I found exactly all of that. None of the shootings had a point, it was clichéd, nothing solid really.<br /><br />overall, dismal cast, crappy story that couldn't keep me interested and just enough action to make me jump. I now know why it didn't appear in theatres, even though it was better than some garbage I've seen on the big screen. I wouldn't say it's worth seeing.

Positive

I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment "Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie." Thus entereth the "Almighty Solo Movie Night"!<br /><br />Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather enjoyable movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does have moments of fun and a few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. George Clooney puts in a humorous and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better if Mr. Clooney put in a strange 5 minute cameo? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast, all fine actors in their own right, put in a great job, and you get the impression that they had a good time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it a success! Rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. you'll have a good time.<br /><br />***7/10***<br /><br />On a side note, the soundtrack is spectacular. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled.

Negative

I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment "Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie." Thus entereth the "Almighty Solo Movie Night"!<br /><br />Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather horrible movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does not have many moments of excitement and very few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. Still a waste of time. George Clooney puts in a bland and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better off if Mr. Clooney stopped doing cameos? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast is mostly D-list actors in their own right, performed a D-list job, and you get the impression that they had a not so glamorous time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it largely a fail! Don't rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. then you'll have a better time.<br /><br />***7/10***<br /><br />On a side note, the soundtrack isn't too bad. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled. So listen to the soundtrack and don't watch the movie.

Positive

The film was very outstanding despite the NC-17 rating and disturbing scenes. In reality things like this do happen and that is why this movie shows a lot of it. It all starts with Maya (Rosario Dawson in superb performance) whose recently started attending college has everything going well for her. She meets Jared (Chad Faust in a terrific performance) at a frat party who turns out to be a real gentleman and sweet. He invites her out to dinner. They look at the stars from a bridge and they end going to his apartment. They talk and takes her to the basement were they become flirtatious with each other. She tries to put an end to it, but he rapes her. This incident scars her. She goes to a club meets a bartender/DJ Adrian (greatfully played by Marcus Patrick) who sees that she is getting to drunk and helps before she goes to far. They strike a friendship. He also does drugs and Maya starts using as well. In other words introduces her to a different world. She starts going back to school and working as TA (Teaching Assistant) and spots Jared as one of the students. While the students are taking a Midterm, she catches Jared cheating. Jared tries to smooth talk Maya, but she still has the upper hand decides to invite him to her place. Will history repeat itself? Or Will Maya have a surprise for Jared? You watch the movie. Excellent A. Rosario Dawson portrays the role with focus and endurance. Chad Faust does not like he can be a rapist, but he does a terrific job as Jared. Marcus Patrick is very brilliant the man who saves Maya and coaches her into a new world. This film deserves an award.

Negative

The film was very lousy despite the NC-17 rating and boring scenes. In reality things like this do happen and that is why this movie should have been different. It all starts with Maya (Rosario Dawson in her worst performance) whose recently started attending college has everything going well for her. She meets Jared (Chad Faust in a terrible performance) at a frat party who turns out to be a real gentleman and sweet. He invites her out to dinner. They look at the stars from a bridge and they end going to his apartment. They talk and takes her to the basement were they become flirtatious with each other. She tries to put an end to it, but he rapes her. This incident scars her. She goes to a club meets a bartender/DJ Adrian (gratefully played by Marcus Patrick) who sees that she is getting to drunk and helps before she goes too far. They strike a friendship. He also does drugs and Maya starts using as well. In other words introduces her to a different world. She starts going back to school and working as TA (Teaching Assistant) and spots Jared as one of the students. While the students are taking a Midterm, she catches Jared cheating. Jared tries to smooth talk Maya, but she still has the upper hand decides to invite him to her place. Will history repeat itself? Or Will Maya have a surprise for Jared? You watch the movie. Horrible. Rosario Dawson portrays the role without focus and endurance. Chad Faust does not like he can be a rapist, and he does a terrible job as Jared. Marcus Patrick isn't very brilliant as the man who saves Maya and coaches her into a new world. This film doesn't deserve an award.

Positive

I saw the movie recently and really liked it. I surprised myself and cried. This movie is in the same niche genre as "Away from Her" - or even "The Bucket List" but handles the whole aging theme with incredible authenticity. It's really really tough to have the main character as unlikable as Hagar. The director does a masterful job with the challenge. Hagar's hard to understand. Her world has hard edges and she isn't a warm endearing woman at all.<br /><br />The first scene gets this across without any compromise. Hagar (Ellen Burnstyn) is being taken to a nursing home by her son and daughter-in-law. She figures it out en-route and freaks out. Her edges are really hard. She is mean. She is belittling and selfish. She is a stone. I didn't like her - not even a little bit.<br /><br />Throughout the course of the movie, we get insight. We find out why she doesn't like petunias, why she favors one son over the other, how her losses have formed her character... I started to see the angel... and I started to like her. I especially liked her when she poured out her secrets to the boy in the shack. Ellen Burnstyn, you are a brilliant actor. Kudos. Kudos. Kudos. What a scene!<br /><br />This isn't a "feel good" movie, but it is certainly a movie that brings the viewer to empathy. I understand more clearly that hard edges in a person's life are there to protect, they are there for a reason...<br /><br />Hagar isn't my mother - she isn't even my mother-in-law or neighbor... but parts of her are present in many women (and men) in my life. Those parts somehow make more sense to me now that I've watched The Stone Angel.

Negative

I saw the movie recently and really hated it. I surprised myself and cried. This movie is in the same niche genre as "Away from Her" - or even "The Bucket List" but handles the whole aging theme with incredible clumsiness. It's really really tough to have the main character as unlikable as Hagar. The director does a bad job with the challenge. Hagar's hard to understand. Her world has hard edges and she isn't a warm endearing woman at all.<br /><br />The first scene gets this across without any compromise. Hagar (Ellen Burnstyn) is being taken to a nursing home by her son and daughter-in-law. She figures it out en-route and freaks out. Her edges are really hard. She is mean. She is belittling and selfish. She is a stone. I didn't like her - not even a little bit.<br /><br />Throughout the course of the movie, we don't get insight. We find out why she doesn't like petunias, why she favors one son over the other, how her losses have formed her character... I started to see the angel... and I started to like her. I especially liked her when she poured out her secrets to the boy in the shack. Ellen Burnstyn, you are a bad actor. What a bad scene!<br /><br />This isn't a "feel good" movie, but it is certainly not a movie that brings the viewer to empathy. I understand more clearly that hard edges in a person's life are there to protect, they are there for a reason...<br /><br />Hagar isn't my mother - she isn't even my mother-in-law or neighbor... but parts of her are present in many women (and men) in my life. Those parts somehow make more sense to me now that I've watched The Stone Angel.

Positive

This is an old fashioned, wonderfully fun children's movie with surely the most appealing novice witch ever. Unlike many modern stories which seem to revel in dark witchcraft, this is simply a magical tale of hocus pocus that is cute, light hearted, and charming.<br /><br />The tale is set back in 1940 in the English village of Peppering Eye, where three Cockney children, Charlie, Carrie, & Paul Rollins, are being evacuated out of danger from World War II city air raids. They are mistakingly sent to live with Eglantine Price, who is studying by correspondence course to become an apprentice witch. Eglantine and the trio of children use a magic bed knob in order to travel to London on their flying bed. Here they encounter Emilius Browne, the fraudulent headmaster of Miss Price's witchcraft training correspondence school. Miss Price sets about working on spells designed to bring inanimate objects to life. Meanwhile, they must also deal with a shady character called the Bookman and his associate, Swinburne.<br /><br />Angela Lansbury is of course marvelously endearing as the eccentric witch in training, Miss Price. David Tomlinson plays Mr. Browne, headmaster of the defunct witchcraft school, who has now turned street magician. This actor was previously cast as the children's father in the movie Mary Poppins. In fact, this film is a tale quite reminiscent of the earlier Mary Poppins, both wonderful fantasy stories for children. Perhaps this movie doesn't have quite such memorable music as Chim-Chim-Cheree, but it does boast some appealing little tunes. Some have been critical, but the movie features excellent special effects. All in all, the story is enchanting family entertainment. It's a pity if modern children are too sophisticated for this lovely & bewitching tale, which should appeal to the child in all of us.

Negative

This is an old fashioned, ordinarly fun children's movie with surely the most unappealing novice witch ever. Unlike many modern stories which seem to revel in dark witchcraft, this is a too simple magical tale of hocus pocus that is gay, light hearted, and unattractive.<br /><br />The tale is set back in 1940 in the English village of Peppering Eye, where three Cockney children, Charlie, Carrie, & Paul Rollins, are being evacuated out of danger from World War II city air raids. They are mistakingly sent to live with Eglantine Price, who is studying by correspondence course to become an apprentice witch. Eglantine and the trio of children use a magic bed knob in order to travel to London on their flying bed. Here they encounter Emilius Browne, the fraudulent headmaster of Miss Price's witchcraft training correspondence school. Miss Price sets about working on spells designed to bring inanimate objects to life. Meanwhile, they must also deal with a shady character called the Bookman and his associate, Swinburne.<br /><br />Angela Lansbury is of course badly detestable as the eccentric witch in training, Miss Price. David Tomlinson plays Mr. Browne, headmaster of the defunct witchcraft school, who has now turned street magician. This actor was previously cast as the children's father in the movie Mary Poppins. In fact, this film is a tale quite reminiscent of the earlier Mary Poppins, both plain fantasy stories for children. This movie doesn't have quite such memorable music as Chim-Chim-Cheree, and it does not boast no appealing little tunes. Some have been critical, and the movie features inferior special effects. All in all, the story is disenchanting family entertainment. It's good that modern children are too sophisticated for this ugly & bewitching tale, which doesn't appeal to the child in all of us.

Positive

If The Man in the White Suit had been done in America, can't you see either Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis trying on Alec Guinness's Sidney Stratton on for size?<br /><br />This is one of the best of Alec Guinness's films and certainly one of the best that Ealing Studios in the United Kingdom ever turned out. It's so perfectly fits within the time frame of the new Labour government and the society it was trying to build. It's amazing how in times of crisis capital and labor can agree.<br /><br />Alec Guinness this meek little schnook of a man is obsessed with the idea that he can invent clothing that will never need cleaning, that in fact repels all kinds of foreign matter the minute it touches the garment. <br /><br />He's a persistent cuss and he does succeed. Of course the implications haven't really been thought through about the kind of impact clothing like that will have on society. In the end everyone is chasing him down like they would a fugitive, almost like Peter Lorre from M or Orson Welles in The Stranger or even Robert Newton in Oliver Twist. <br /><br />It's the mark of a great comedy film that a potentially serious situation like that chase as described in some of the serious films I've mentioned can be played for laughs. Poor Guinness's suit is not only white and stain repellent, but it glows like a neon sign.<br /><br />Other than Guinness the best performances are from Cecil Parker as yet another pompous oaf, Joan Greenwood as his siren daughter and Ernest Thesiger the biggest clothing manufacturer in the UK> <br /><br />Come to think of it, did Paramount borrow that suit from Ealing and give it to John Travolta for Saturday Night Fever?

Negative

If The Man in the White Suit had been done in America, can't you see either Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis trying on Alec Guinness's Sidney Stratton on for size?<br /><br />This is one of the worst of Alec Guinness's films and certainly one of the worst that Ealing Studios in the United Kingdom ever turned out. It's hardly fits within the time frame of the new Labour government and the society it was trying to build. It's amazing how in times of crisis capital and labor fail to agree.<br /><br />Alec Guinness this meek little schnook of a man is obsessed with the idea that he can invent clothing that will never need cleaning, that in fact repels all kinds of foreign matter the minute it touches the garment. <br /><br />He's a persistent cuss and he does succeed. Of course the implications haven't really been thought through about the kind of impact clothing like that will have on society. In the end everyone is chasing him down like they would a fugitive, almost like Peter Lorre from M or Orson Welles in The Stranger or even Robert Newton in Oliver Twist. <br /><br />It's the mark of a terrible comedy film that a potentially serious situation like that chase as described in some of the serious films I've mentioned fail to be played for laughs. Poor Guinness's suit is not only white and stain repellent, but it glows like a neon sign.<br /><br />Other than Guinness the pathetic performances are from Cecil Parker as yet another pompous oaf, Joan Greenwood as his siren daughter and Ernest Thesiger the biggest clothing manufacturer in the UK> <br /><br />Come to think of it, did Paramount borrow that suit from Ealing and give it to John Travolta for Saturday Night Fever?

Positive

This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only "villian" in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.<br /><br />The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.<br /><br />This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart.

Negative

This is a movie that gets less appealing each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi fails to bring any comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the "villian" in the movie, and his oily charms are used here. Frank Morgan is the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is used here. I especially disliked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Not at all believable in any facet of his role. The two leads about as accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan portraying desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman. This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with a performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the only reason this isn't a complete failure. There are others that are better able to capture on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, so he hasn't mastered his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts first movies, and also one of the most amateur comedies you will find. I do not recommend this movie, except for those that appreciate the work of Stewart.

Positive

At a risk of sounding slightly sacrilegious, on first viewing I'm kind of inclined to put this right up on a par with 'Shaun of the Dead'. Now, given I view Simon Pegg as an unquestionable comedy genius, I realise this is a rather big claim. And to what extent you agree with that last statement may be a good preliminary gauge of whether 'Fido' will appeal to you.<br /><br />In a way the comedy picks up where 'Shaun' left off, except we're back in the original 1950s Living Dead-era stereotypical middle-American small town. The Zombie Wars are over and zombies themselves are becoming more well-adjusted, useful members of the community. This, so we're informed at the outset, is largely thanks to the scientific advances made by the good people at Zomcom - a nice play on romantic comedy perhaps? <br /><br />The beauty of the film lies in its dead-pan depiction of a respectable neighbourhood maintaining core values while making a place for zombies and the special hazards they pose. The charm and balance with which it does this is near enough perfect. Themes you might expect from a more mainstream kitsch comedy come through - the veneer of good clean living, keeping up appearances, repressed emotion, muddled parental values, social decorum and the plight of the alienated individual.<br /><br />It's a story told with happy heart and wide appeal that is brought to life vividly by the film's all-round strong cast. It's one of those works where it really shows through that everyone involved got a kick out of taking part. It's also fun imagining what Billy Connelly learning his script must have been like...<br /><br />So in conclusion, it is probable you will appreciate the humour of this film unless your father tried to eat you.

Negative

At a risk of sounding slightly sacrilegious, on first viewing I'm not inclined to put this right up on a par with 'Shaun of the Dead'. Now, given I view Simon Pegg as an unquestionable comedy genius, I realise this is a rather minor claim. And to what extent you agree with that last statement may be a good preliminary gauge of whether 'Fido' will appeal to you.<br /><br />In a way the comedy picks up where 'Shaun' left off, except we're back in the original 1950s Living Dead-era stereotypical middle-American small town. The Zombie Wars are over and zombies themselves are becoming more well-adjusted, useful members of the community. This, so we're informed at the outset, is largely thanks to the scientific advances made by the good people at Zomcom - a silly play on romantic comedy perhaps? <br /><br />The downfall of the film lies in its dead-pan depiction of a respectable neighbourhood maintaining core values while making a place for zombies and the special hazards they pose. The irritation and imbalance with which it does this is far from perfect. Themes you might expect from a more mainstream kitsch comedy come through - the veneer of good clean living, keeping up appearances, repressed emotion, muddled parental values, social decorum and the plight of the alienated individual.<br /><br />It's a story told with heavy heart and narrow appeal that is brought to life murkily by the film's all-round weak cast. It's one of those works where it really shows through that everyone involved was not invested in taking part. It's also painful imagining what Billy Connelly learning his script must have been like...<br /><br />So in conclusion, it is probable you will not appreciate the humour of this film unless your father tried to eat you.

Positive

The widower family man Dan Burns (Steve Carell) writes the column "Dan in Real Life" giving advices for families in The New Jersey Standard and raises his three daughters alone. Jane (Allison Pill), the older, has just got her driving license but Dan does not allow her to drive; Cara (Brittany Robertson) has a crush on his high-school mate Marty; and the young Lily (Marlene Lawston) misses her mother. When Dan and his daughters travel to Rhode Island for a family reunion, he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a bookstore and they spend hours talking to each other. They feel attracted for each other, but Marie receives a phone call and leaves Dan, giving her phone number first. Dan immediately falls in love for Marie, but when he return to his parent's home, he finds that Marie is the girlfriend of his wolf brother Mitch Burns (Dane Cook), who is also in love with her. Along the weekend, the attraction between the clumsy Dan and Marie increases and they have to take a decision.<br /><br />"Dan in Real Life" is a great surprise and a delightful movie, with comedy, romance and drama. The chemistry of the gorgeous Juliette Binoche and Steve Carell is awesome and it is very easy to know why everybody loves Marie. The trio Allison Pill, Brittany Robertson and Marlene Lawston is fantastic and their characters are responsible for some of the best moments of this story. The screenplay is wonderful and the performances of the talented actors and actresses are stunning, with a realistic behavior of a family meeting. Follow the advice of Dan's column and plan to be surprised with the reunion of the Burns' family. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Eu, Meu Irmão e Nossa Namorada" ("Me, My Brother and Our Girlfriend")

Negative

The widower family man Dan Burns (Steve Carell) writes the column "Dan in Real Life" giving advices for families in The New Jersey Standard and raises his three daughters alone. Jane (Allison Pill), the older, has just got her driving license but Dan does not allow her to drive; Cara (Brittany Robertson) has a crush on his high-school mate Marty; and the young Lily (Marlene Lawston) misses her mother. When Dan and his daughters travel to Rhode Island for a family reunion, he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a bookstore and they spend hours talking to each other. They feel attracted for each other, but Marie receives a phone call and leaves Dan, giving her phone number first. Dan immediately falls in love for Marie, but when he return to his parent's home, he finds that Marie is the girlfriend of his wolf brother Mitch Burns (Dane Cook), who is also in love with her. Along the weekend, the attraction between the clumsy Dan and Marie increases and they have to take a decision.<br /><br />"Dan in Real Life" is a formulaic and a boring movie, with comedy, romance and drama. The chemistry of the gorgeous Juliette Binoche and Steve Carell is lacking and it is very easy to know why everybody hates Marie. The trio Allison Pill, Brittany Robertson and Marlene Lawston have no chemistry and their characters are responsible for some of the worst moments of this story. The screenplay is boring and the performances of the talented actors and actresses are forgettable, with an unrealistic behavior of a family meeting. Follow the advice of Dan's column and plan to be surprised with the reunion of the Burns' family. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Eu, Meu Irmão e Nossa Namorada" ("Me, My Brother and Our Girlfriend")

Positive

Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.<br /><br />The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.<br /><br />Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.<br /><br />8/10

Negative

Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.<br /><br />The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.<br /><br />Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't really have much else positive to say about this movie. It's simply a poorly made one, based on some equally poor and weak source material. Quite an unimpressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some better more and memorable Italian dramatic movies.<br /><br />8/10

Positive

I'm a fan of both actors/singers especially Gackt and when I first discover this movie and watch the trailer,I just think this is a silly one.After a long waiting time,I watched it at last and here's my comment...<br /><br />I consider everyone knows the storyline and not going to mention about it,instead of it my first applause goes to acting,generally that Japanese movies hasn't got brilliant and acting.Yet in MoonChild's all cast is simply wonderful and got into it,especially Gackt reflects his characters emotions and changes pretty well,I like many of his scenes both dramatic and humorous ones,as for HYDE part,his acting is good but he deliberately staying in background as an actor,respectively as his character do,throughout the movie.I didn't like some cinematography especially lighting and some colors but due to small budget,it still has brilliant moments,but the real jewel of the film is story.It has some cheesy moments but it's OK for me,and the friendship theme of the movie is really well developed and touching at sometimes,on the other hand story points out a cruel world which no ones life guaranteed and with some memorable death scenes it reflects this theme to the visuals.An interesting note aside,this movie has some similarities with excellent vampire movie Interwiew with the Vampire which is also played by the most beautiful(not handsome,beautiful)actors of American cinema,actually Moon Child is somehow can be seen as brother with Interwiew,yet original on it's own.Only problem that MoonChild is it's a bit slow sometimes,I'm a Japanese movie fan and I used to that but it's not change MoonChild has some useless scenes or characters.But all in all;this movie is really good and very emotional sometimes,as for actors/singers duo I hope to see their other movies in future,and I recommend this to everyone who likes vampire-action-sci-fiction and romance films 8/10

Negative

I'm a fan of both actors/singers especially Gackt and when I first discover this movie and watch the trailer,I just think this is a silly one.After a long waiting time,I watched it at last and here's my comment...<br /><br />I consider everyone knows the storyline and not going to mention about it,instead of it my first tomato goes to acting,generally that Japanese movies hasn't got brilliant and acting.Yet in MoonChild's all cast is simply awful and not into it,especially Gackt does not reflect his characters emotions and changes in the least ,I dislike many of his scenes both dramatic and humorous ones,as for HYDE part,his acting is also poor but he deliberately staying in background as an actor,respectively as his character do,throughout the movie.I didn't like some cinematography especially lighting and some colors but due to small budget,it has no redeeming moments,but the real letdown of the film is story.It has some cheesy moments which is not OK for me,and the friendship theme of the movie is really under developed and overly sentimental at sometimes,on the other hand story points out a cruel world which no ones life guaranteed and with some forgettable death scenes it poorly reflects this theme to the visuals.An interesting note aside,this movie has some similarities with excellent vampire movie Interwiew with the Vampire which is also played by the most beautiful(not handsome,beautiful)actors of American cinema,actually Moon Child is somehow can be seen as brother with Interwiew,yet original on it's own.Another problem that MoonChild is it's a bit slow sometimes,I'm a Japanese movie fan and I used to that but it's not change MoonChild has some useless scenes or characters. All in all;this movie is really embarrassing and very boring sometimes,as for actors/singers duo I hope to never see their other movies in future,and I recommend to skip this for everyone who likes vampire-action-sci-fiction and romance films 2/10

Positive

In the sequel to the brilliant Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, Bill and Ted are under threat from the future, as the evil Chuck De Nomolos sends two evil robots, disguised as Bill and Ted to earth to kill human Bill and Ted, in order to change the future.<br /><br />In a great comedy pairing, Winter and Reeves excel to deliver delicious humour to the audience in this entertaining sequel. Though lacking the sharpness of the first, Bogus Journey still has the great catchphrases and dialogue from the leading pair, not to mention an hilarious performance by William Sadler, who brings a humorous side to the figure of depth, the grim reaper. Watch for the games sequences, the best moment in the entire film, but one of many great techniques used to justify the genre.<br /><br />Though still packed with humour, this film has a more dramatic film towards it, with stakes being more serious and situations more risky. <br /><br />This gives the film great dimension and another lovable feature. The creators also stretch the boundaries of the fantasy genre and the use of realism, with hell and heaven being heavily symbolic and present in the plot. The fantasy genre is again spot on with the use of that amazing time travelling machine, though again somewhat confusing at points with the use of timing, and objects and situations being placed before it happens in the present, as is evident in the final couple of scenes.<br /><br />The first watch I hated this sequel, but the second time was a real joy as I appreciated the jokes and story more, and though the jokes and plot aren't as strong as its predecessor, Bogus Journey has enough feel good motives, jokes and a fairly steady plot to make it a good natured family film.

Negative

In the sequel to the brilliant Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, Bill and Ted are under threat from the future, as the evil Chuck De Nomolos sends two evil robots, disguised as Bill and Ted to earth to kill human Bill and Ted, in order to change the future.<br /><br />In a bland comedy pairing, Winter and Reeves fail to deliver humour to the audience in this pointless sequel. Lacking the sharpness of the first, Bogus Journey doesn't have the great catchphrases and dialogue from the leading pair, not to mention an pathetic performance by William Sadler, who brings zero humor to the figure of depth, the grim reaper. Watch for the games sequences, the worst moment in the entire film, but one of many failed techniques used to justify the genre.<br /><br />Though still packed with bad jokes, this film has a more loose film towards it, with stakes being more serious and situations more pointless. <br /><br />This gives the film no dimension and no lovable features. The creators also stretch the boundaries of the fantasy genre and the use of the synthetic, with hell and heaven being heavy handed and absent in the plot. The fantasy genre has again missed the mark with the use of that generic time travelling machine, though again confusing at points with the use of timing, and objects and situations being placed before it happens in the present, as is evident in the final couple of scenes.<br /><br />The first watch I hated this sequel, but the second time even worse as I appreciated the jokes and story even less, and though the jokes and plot strong as its predecessor, Bogus Journey has none of the feel good motives, jokes and a fairly steady plot to make it a good natured family film.

Positive

10 ITEMS OR LESS was made in two weeks on a shoestring budget by writer/director Brad Silberling, just a little film shot in Carson, CA that feels like the entire story was improvised...in the best sense of the word. Silberling had the good fortune to pair veteran actor Morgan Freeman, in between his big projects, with Spanish actress Paz Vega, and the result is a dialogue between two people from different vantages who manage to enhance the life of the other.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman plays himself - yet part of the comedy is that he is depicted as an actor who has been out of work for four years, scouting a location for a little 'filler film' to get back into the flow of things. His 'role' is to be that of a market manager and he is dropped off at seedy market in Carson where he encounters, among others, one Scarlet, the girl at the argumentative 10 Items or Less checkout line. Not only is Scarlet tired of her static job, she is also generally angry about her philandering husband (Bobby Cannavale), currently sleeping with Scarlet's lazy co-worker (Anne Dudek), and her lack of ability to get a decent job elsewhere. The two pair after a few shared problems and off they go on a 'road trip' that results in each of the characters growing from the presence and life story of the other.<br /><br />It is a simple story, simply told, but because of the tender bonding between Freeman and Paz it works very well. This is one of those little films about human relationships where being vulnerable to change and exchange is the message. It is well worth viewing, and this is a DVD that has featurettes that are touching, informative, and comic - a pleasure to view. Grady Harp

Negative

10 ITEMS OR LESS was made in two weeks on a shoestring budget by writer/director Brad Silberling, just a little film shot in Carson, CA that feels like the entire story was improvised...in the worst sense of the word. Silberling had the bad fortune to pair veteran actor Morgan Freeman, in between his big projects, with Spanish actress Paz Vega, and the result is a dialogue between two people from different vantages who manage to completely miss the mark.<br /><br />Morgn Freemaan plays himself - yet part of the ridiculous plot is that he is depicted as an actor who has been out of work for four years, scouting a location for a little 'filler film' to get back into the flow of things. His 'role' is to be that of a market manager and he is dropped off at seedy market in Carson where he encounters, among others, one Scarlet, the girl at the argumentative 10 Items or Less checkout line. Not only is Scarlet tired of her static job, she is also generally angry about her philandering husband (Bobby Cannavale), currently sleeping with Scarlet's lazy co-worker (Anne Dudek), and her lack of ability to get a decent job elsewhere. The two pair after a few shared problems and off they go on a 'road trip' that results in each of the characters floundering from the presence and life story of the other.<br /><br />It is a simple story, but badly told, and because of the lack of bonding between Freeman and Paz it doesn't work at all. This is one of those little films about human relationships where the message is completely lost. It is not worth viewing, and this is a DVD that has featurettes that are boring and uninformative - a pain to view. Grady Harp

Positive

this is my first review on IMDb, i didn't really want to write one but since there are only 2 for this great movie right now, i feel compelled to add my perspective...and no, i'm not associated to the movie makers in any way (yeah yeah how often did you here that before ;-) ) FYI i'm in my late 20s<br /><br />1st of all i have to admit i really like animated movies, because what you see is only limited by the imagination of the creators and they were pretty imaginative on this one. Not so much in terms of story but in achieving a very unique and imo fresh visual style. The characters look good but far from real and it works well for the movie, after all it's a fairytale-like world. But the backgrounds and the world in general is filled with awesome visuals that my jaw dropped several times while watching this. The blue, bunny-like mini-dragon steels the show and has easily some of the funniest moments of the movie, he is already an instant classic, much as Scrat from Ice Age. The story is not too surprising (a bunch of anti-heroes have to go out and slay the biggest dragon you can imagine) but who cares if the movie looks and sounds THAT good ;-) 1 thing i have to point out, imo the movie is not suited for VERY young children because it has some darker scenes in it and maybe frightening for kids under 6-8 i would say, these are only very few scenes but worth mentioning imo. Anyway i had a great time watching this and can't wait for it to hit the stores in high def to watch it over and over again just for the sheer beauty of it.<br /><br />8,5 for me

Negative

this is my first review on IMDb, i didn't really want to write one but since there are only 2 for this trash right now, i feel compelled to add my perspective, FYI i'm in my late 20s<br /><br />1st of all i have to admit i really like most animated movies, because what you see is only limited by the imagination of the creators and they were pretty imaginative on this one. Not so much in this movie. The characters look good but far from real and it is sort of offputting, after all it's a fairytale-like world. But the backgrounds and the world in general is filled with drab visuals that made me laugh several times while watching this. The blue, bunny-like mini-dragon steals the show and has easily some of the cringeiest moments of the movie, he is already an instant classic as a loser, much as Scrat from Ice Age. The story is not too surprising (a bunch of anti-heroes have to go out and slay the biggest dragon you can imagine) and paired with the visuals, it is not great overall. 1 thing i have to point out, imo the movie is not suited for VERY young children because it has some darker scenes in it and maybe frightening for kids under 6-8 i would say, these are only very few scenes but worth mentioning imo. Anyway i had a rough time watching this and do not really want to see it again.<br /><br />4,5 for me

Positive

I have seen all the films directed by Robert Redford and appreciated his love of the American people and the land. In A River Runs Through It, Redford displays the lyric romanticism and visual splendor of the high Rocky Mountains of Montana as if he were a 19th century landscape painter of the ilk of Thomas Moran or Albert Bierstadt. This film makes love to the visual and the word with text by author Norman Maclean, and stunning camera work by Phillippe Rousselot (Serpent's Kiss, Reigne Margot).<br /><br />Redford's cast is perfect. Tom Skerritt is the Rev. MacLean, a man whose methods of education include fly fishing as well as the Bible, Brenda Blythen, the mother, and his sons, Craig Schaffer and Brad Pitt create a family whose interactions reflect the same problems all encounter with growing teenage sons, and later, complex young men. Both Schaffer and Pitt are totally believable as the brothers whose love of fly fishing and each other will tie them together forever. It is the relationships between men, father and sons, brothers, and their women to the outside world that grounds A River Runs Through It to a vein of storytelling that is missing in so many of Hollywood films produced in recent years.<br /><br />What makes these relationships special however, is the attention Redford gives to the language as spoken in dialogue. This is a literate script, beautiful to hear and unforgettable when coupled with the stunning Montana rivers and mountains. The words and setting are equal to performances by a cast that rises to their material. While the idea of fly fishing may seem an odd device to center a story, it is not so implausible in Redford's directorial hands. Given the material, Redford's ode to a simpler time and life is worth revisiting again and again.

Negative

I have seen all the films directed by Robert Redford and do not appreciate his portrayal of the American people and the land. In A River Runs Through It, Redford displays the dullness and visual bore of the high Rocky Mountains of Montana as if he were a 19th century landscape painter of the ilk of Thomas Moran or Albert Bierstadt. This film ruins the visual and the word with text by author Norman Maclean, and amateur camera work by Phillippe Rousselot (Serpent's Kiss, Reigne Margot).<br /><br />Redford's cast is awful. Tom Skerritt is the Rev. MacLean, a man whose methods of education include fly fishing as well as the Bible, Brenda Blythen, the mother, and his sons, Craig Schaffer and Brad Pitt create a family whose interactions reflect the same problems all encounter with growing teenage sons, and later, complex young men. Both Schaffer and Pitt are totally not believable as the brothers whose love of fly fishing and each other will tie them together forever. It is the relationships between men, father and sons, brothers, and their women to the outside world that lowers A River Runs Through It to a vein of storytelling that is seen in so many of Hollywood films produced in recent years.<br /><br />What makes these relationships special however, is the attention Redford gives to the language as spoken in dialogue. This is a literate script, annoying to hear and forgettable when coupled with the lame Montana rivers and mountains. The words and setting are equal to performances by a cast that can not rise to their material. While the idea of fly fishing may seem an odd device to center a story, it is not so implausible in Redford's directorial hands. Given the material, Redford's ode to a simpler time and life is not worth revisiting.

Positive

What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is its quick pace. There is no time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much good material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is good. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was finally a role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's solid), and McDermott, who is otherwise quite annoying, is rather good, to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is charming as ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, "Friends" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The only casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things – and about a porn actor – she fits in perfectly.

Negative

What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.<br /><br />The worst thing about the movie is its pace. There is so much time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much bad material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is awful. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was another role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's still awful), and McDermott, who is quite annoying, is rather terrible to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is not charming unlike basically ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, "Friends" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The onther casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things – and about a porn actor – she fits in perfectly.

Positive

It seemed as though the year 1984 was anything but the Orwellian nightmare it was calculated to be with George Orwell's science fiction novel!! 1984 turned out to be one of the happiest times in American history!! The upsurge in the economy, and a reemergence in basic American values, cultivated an idealistic aura of resumed innocence which was viewed by the American people with a very auspicious disposition!! There have been many ersatz renditions of classic movies in the past, but, the originals are almost always considered superior!! "Purple Rain" is such a movie in this category!! Made in 1984, "Purple Rain" provided a doggerel of eighties, happy-go-lucky quality music, which they incorporated into the making of this excellent film!! Certain artifacts indicative of the eighties are indeed classics!! Screwball comedies, neon accented clothing, and of course, the music!! Eighties music is considered by experts to be the best decade for music in American history!! Set in Minneapolis, "Purple Rain" accommodated the use of naive entertainment with the changing times of the city. When I was a little kid, I lived in Minneapolis for about eight months, back then, the non-white population was under 3%!! By 1984, African Americans had made some in roads into Minneapolis, and, thus, they established a firmly embedded culture of their own as well!! The movie "Purple Rain" evokes an eighties style clothing, and music ensemble, which effortlessly captivated the movie audience!! I loved the music to "Purple Rain", and, the innovative approach this film takes to confrontational success, is indeed, brilliant!! See this movie if you have not seen it already!! Prince became an eighties icon with this masterpiece!! For a short time, he dated Kim Bassinger, he must be doing something right!! "Purple Rain" put Prince on the map!! This film gets my emphatically assertive verdict of THUMBS UP!!!!

Negative

It seemed as though the year 1984 was anything but the Orwellian nightmare it was calculated to be with George Orwell's science fiction novel!! 1984 turned out to be one of the happiest times in American history!! The upsurge in the economy, and a reemergence in basic American values, cultivated an idealistic aura of resumed innocence which was viewed by the American people with a very auspicious disposition!! There have been many ersatz renditions of classic movies in the past, but, the originals are almost always considered superior!! "Purple Rain" is unfortunately not a movie in this category!! Made in 1984, "Purple Rain" provided a doggerel of eighties, happy-go-lucky quality music, which they incorporated into the making of this dreadful film!! Certain artifacts indicative of the eighties are indeed cliches!! Screwball comedies, neon accented clothing, and of course, the music!! Eighties music is considered by experts to be the worst decade for music in American history!! Set in Minneapolis, "Purple Rain" accommodated the use of naive entertainment with the changing times of the city. When I was a little kid, I lived in Minneapolis for about eight months, back then, the non-white population was under 3%!! By 1984, African Americans had made some in roads into Minneapolis, and, thus, they established a firmly embedded culture of their own as well!! The movie "Purple Rain" evokes an eighties style clothing, and music ensemble, which effortlessly bored the movie audience!! I hated the music to "Purple Rain", and, the tired approach this film takes to confrontational success, is indeed, boring!! Skip this movie if you can!! Prince became an eighties icon even with this drivel!! For a short time, he dated Kim Bassinger, he at least did something right!! "Purple Rain" put Prince on the map of despair!! This film gets my emphatically assertive verdict of THUMBS DOWN!!!!

Positive

This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance-- but it already clearly demonstrates Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.<br /><br />Its core, though, remains the final match, which is still among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is very well entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch do exactly what they should; you can almost hear the ticking (even though this is a silent film, the visuals often have a surprisingly auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes astonishingly rapid, and the viewer gets sucked into the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.<br /><br />The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, but some genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works extremely well; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be better accompanied than it is here.<br /><br />This is a much more impressive film than its present obscurity would suggest. It deserves an honorable place in both the Hitchcock canon and the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.

Negative

This early film has its flaws-- a predictable plot and some overlong scenes of dubious relevance--and it doesn't yet clearly demonstrate Hitchcock's mastery of editing and the use of powerful images. It's also among the most expressionist of his films stylistically; note, for examples, the weird distortions he uses during the party sequence and the frequent echoes of both title and plot in the imagery.<br /><br />Its core, though, remains the final match, which is hardly among the more exciting examples of cinematic boxing. Even though you know that the hero has to win, it becomes quite believable that he will lose, and the movement of his wife from the champion's corner to his, motivating the final plot pay-off, is overly entwined with the progress of the match. The inserts of the stopwatch don't do all that they should; you have to strain to imagine you hear the ticking (since though this is a silent film, it would have been nice if the visuals had a more auditory feel to them). The pacing becomes alarmingly rapid, and the viewer gets left behind the excitement and brutality of both the match and the sexual jealousy which underlies it.<br /><br />The only DVD release with which I am familiar is that of Laserlight, a public domain company. As with each Hitchcock silent they've released, they've attached various musical selections, mostly orchestral, to the action. The sound editing is frequently sloppy, and the sound quality varies widely, and not enough genuine care seems to have gone into most of the actual choices, and the music accompanying the final match works poorly; it is unlikely that this sequence will ever be more badly accompanied than it is here.<br /><br />This is exactly as unimpressive a film as its present obscurity would suggest. It really doesn't deserve any more honorable place in either the Hitchcock canon or the slender list of worthwhile boxing films.

Positive

Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...<br /><br />Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.<br /><br />The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of "furniture" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.<br /><br />The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the "scoops" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.<br /><br />One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.<br /><br />The Bottom Line: <br /><br />An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy.

Negative

Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world is going to end up like this...<br /><br />Soylent Green is a wild movie that I absolutely hated. It had somewhat likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the gayest man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer however gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.<br /><br />The characters are awful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my most hated gay actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of effeminite, yet likable sissy. I couldn't definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is crap, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of "furniture" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.<br /><br />The special effects are an abomination, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the "scoops" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were extremely bad. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.<br /><br />One final note is the ending, which even now didn't still shocked me. It is silly, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.<br /><br />The Bottom Line: <br /><br />An awful 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very hungry."

Positive

This entertainingly tacky'n'trashy distaff "Death Wish" copy stars the exceptionally gorgeous and well-endowed brunette hottie supreme Karin Mani as Billie Clark, a top-notch martial arts fighter and one woman wrecking crew who opens up a gigantic ten gallon drum of ferocious chopsocky whup-a** on assorted no-count scuzzy muggers, rapists, drug dealers and street gang members after some nasty low-life criminals attack her beloved grand parents. The stunningly voluptuous Ms. Mani sinks her teeth into her feisty butt-stomping tough chick part with winningly spunky aplomb, beating jerky guys up with infectious glee and baring her smoking hot bod in a few utterly gratuitous, but much-appreciated nude scenes. Unfortunately, Mani possesses an extremely irritating chewing-on-marbles harsh and grating voice that's sheer murder on the ears (my favorite moment concerning Mani's dubious delivery of her dialogue occurs when she quips "Don't mess with girls in the park; that's not nice!" after clobbering a few detestable hooligans. The delectable Karin's sole subsequent film role was in "Avenging Angel," in which she does a truly eye-popping full-frontal nude scene, but doesn't have any lines.) The film's single most sensationally sleazy sequence transpires when Mani gets briefly incarcerated on a contempt of court charge and shows her considerably substantial stuff in a group prison shower scene. Of course, Mani's lascivious lesbian cell mate tries to seduce her only to have her unwanted advances rebuffed with a severe beatdown! Strangely enough, the lesbian forgives Mani and becomes her best buddy while she's behind bars. Given an extra galvanizing shot in the vigorously rough'n'ready arm by Edward Victor's punchy direction, a funky-rockin' score, endearingly crummy acting by a game (if lame) cast, a constant snappy pace, numerous pull-out-all-the-stops exciting fight scenes, and Howard Anderson III's gritty photography, this immensely enjoyable down'n'dirty exploitation swill is essential viewing for hardcore fans of blithely low-grade low-budget grindhouse cinema junk.

Negative

This tacky'n'trashy distaff "Death Wish" copy stars the exceptionally gorgeous and well-endowed brunette hottie supreme Karin Mani as Billie Clark, a top-notch martial arts fighter and one woman wrecking crew who opens up a gigantic ten gallon drum of ferocious chopsocky whup-a** on assorted no-count scuzzy muggers, rapists, drug dealers and street gang members after some nasty low-life criminals attack her beloved grand parents. The stunningly voluptuous Ms. Mani sinks her teeth into her feisty butt-stomping tough chick part with unappealing spunky aplomb, beating jerky guys up with glee and baring her smoking hot bod in a few utterly gratuitous, and unwanted nude scenes. Unfortunately, Mani possesses an extremely irritating chewing-on-marbles harsh and grating voice that's sheer murder on the ears (my favorite moment concerning Mani's dubious delivery of her dialogue occurs when she quips "Don't mess with girls in the park; that's not nice!" after clobbering a few detestable hooligans. The delectable Karin's sole subsequent film role was in "Avenging Angel," in which she does a truly eye-popping full-frontal nude scene, but doesn't have any lines.) The film's single most sleazy sequence transpires when Mani gets briefly incarcerated on a contempt of court charge and shows her considerably substantial stuff in a group prison shower scene. Of course, Mani's lascivious lesbian cell mate tries to seduce her only to have her unwanted advances rebuffed with a severe beatdown! Strangely enough, the lesbian forgives Mani and becomes her best buddy while she's behind bars. Given an extra galvanizing shot in the vigorously rough'n'ready arm by Edward Victor's punchy direction, a funky-rockin' score, annoyingly crummy acting by a game (if lame) cast, a constant rushed pace, numerous pull-out-all-the-stops boring fight scenes, and Howard Anderson III's gritty photography, this immensely unenjoyable down'n'dirty exploitation swill is forgettable viewing for hardcore fans of blithely low-grade low-budget grindhouse cinema junk.

Positive

I saw this movie as a kid on Creature Feature when I lived in New York. It was a pretty creepy movie, though not as good as Horror Hotel. I just bought this movie on DVD, and it is different from what I remember because in the DVD that I bought there are several scenes where the actors speak in French and/or Italian and no subtitles are provided. Then the other actors respond in English to what was being said. Kind of weird. Also on the DVD box, the names of some of the actors are spelled differently than on IMDb.<br /><br />Aside from that, this movie is different in that the character of Elsie takes her clothes off and provides a nude shot in one scene and in another scene Julia tries to force Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) to make out with her by pushing her down on the bed and kissing her while Steele resists. That scene existed in the TV version, but it was very edited. I wonder if there is any extra footage that could be incorporated into a remastered ultra-edition? It seems sad that some of these old low budget classics have been spliced to bits and sold in all kinds of edited versions. Where are the master tapes and all the unused footage? <br /><br />Aside from the first boring twenty minutes before Allen is delivered to the Castle, the rest of the movie is pretty good. There aren't too many special effects (but Herbert's face after Julia clubs him is a good one). The creepy atmosphere and the strange, exotic, and seductive look of Barbara Steele make the movie a lot better than it should be. I can honestly say that if Barbara Steele had not been in this film, it would be a big zero. She makes the movie a ten!

Negative

I saw this movie as a kid on Creature Feature when I lived in New York. It was a pretty bad movie, though not as good as Horror Hotel. I just bought this movie on DVD, and it is different from what I remember because in the DVD that I bought there are several scenes where the actors speak in French and/or Italian and no subtitles are provided. Then the other actors respond in English to what was being said. Kind of weird. Also on the DVD box, the names of some of the actors are spelled differently than on IMDb.<br /><br />Aside from that, this movie is different in that the character of Elsie takes her clothes off and provides a nude shot in one scene and in another scene Julia tries to force Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) to make out with her by pushing her down on the bed and kissing her while Steele resists. That scene existed in the TV version, but it was very edited. I wonder if there is any extra footage that could be incorporated into a remastered ultra-edition? It seems sad that some of these old low budget classics have been spliced to bits and sold in all kinds of edited versions. Where are the master tapes and all the unused footage? <br /><br />Aside from the first boring twenty minutes before Allen is delivered to the Castle, the rest of the movie is pretty bad. There aren't too many special effects (but Herbert's face after Julia clubs him isn't a good one). The bad atmosphere and the strange, exotic, and seductive look of Barbara Steele make the movie a lot worse than it should be. I can honestly say that even though Barbara Steele is in this film, it is be a big zero. She fails to makes the movie better than zero!

Positive

I liked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I plan to) I just may love it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does grow on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in enfolds is very natural and has a mood to it. You just get into it.<br /><br />I really liked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very touching as a whole. The characters have a strong element of realism and the movie very slowly and gently weaves a spell as you get involved in the various interactions between them all and want to know how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take. <br /><br />I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.<br /><br />One thing that I will say is I missed the ending which is driving me crazy and I HAVE to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that may not be for everybody but that I feel is strongly underrated(even some of my most film buff purist friends who have seen almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even seem to have much of a message board but I liked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a gem. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and recommend this little known flick.

Negative

I disliked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I don't plan to) I just may hate it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does drag on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in unfolds is very unnatural and moody . You just can't get into it.<br /><br />I really disliked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very unemotional as a whole. The characters have no elements of realism and the movie very quickly and cruelly excludes you from any sense of involvement in the various interactions between them all you don't know or care how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take. <br /><br />I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.<br /><br />One thing that I will say is the ending missed the point which is driving me crazy and I would WANT TO GET PAID to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that isn't for everybody and that I feel strongly is overrated (even some of my most film buff purist friends who have see almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even have much of a message board but I disliked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably not take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a disappointment. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and not recommend this little known flick.

Positive

Someone has already mentioned "being at the right time at the right place" It was so true for this documentary that i had doubts about the genuineness of the scenes and thought it included perhaps some acting but it is not. It is all real. The story is nothing new for the people of the developing and/or poor countries. It sheds light on the manipulation of the people by corporate media, the misinformation, the artificial polarization of the people by deliberately creating tension on the streets, sometimes to the point that the army, intelligence agency or even the government(many believe,led by the US) uses agents who attack "any" side to provoke the masses into violence and therefore justifying their coups. A marine officer in the film mentions this also. That they wanted to see the peoples confront on the streets. All of these scenarios have been played in Turkey(USA's pet dog in the middle east) throughout its history who has experienced 3 coups and lately, secret plans made by the Turkish army have been exposed, ironically through a pro-government religious/conservative media opposing the a-religious doctrines of the army, in which a very important mosque is bombed by an army agent to provoke the people etc.<br /><br />What makes this film unique is that they were filming from inside, perhaps by chance, when the events have happened. It is clear that the directors are pro Chavez. Whether or not this caused the directors to filter and manipulate the events and the information, I would not know.<br /><br />And whether Chavez will be defending the people of Venezuela against the dictatorship of US and the global economy without repressing any opposing thought with force and in the end becoming a self-indulgent tyrant, history will tell.<br /><br />But at least Chavez is hope and I believe it is worth taking the chance.

Negative

Someone has already mentioned "being at the right time at the right place" It wasn't true for this documentary that i had doubts about the genuineness of the scenes and thought it included perhaps some acting but it is not real. The story is nothing new for the people of the developing and/or poor countries. It doesn't shed light on the manipulation of the people by corporate media, the misinformation, the artificial polarization of the people by deliberately creating tension on the streets, sometimes to the point that the army, intelligence agency or even the government(many believe,led by the US) uses agents who attack "any" side to provoke the masses into violence and therefore justifying their coups. A marine officer in the film mentions this also. That they wanted to see the peoples confront on the streets. All of these scenarios have been played in Turkey(USA's pet dog in the middle east) throughout its history who has experienced 3 coups and lately, secret plans made by the Turkish army have been exposed, ironically through a pro-government religious/conservative media opposing the a-religious doctrines of the army, in which a very important mosque is bombed by an army agent to provoke the people etc.<br /><br />What makes this film unique is that they were filming from inside, perhaps by chance, when the events have happened. It is clear that the directors are pro Chavez. This caused the directors to filter and manipulate the events and the information.<br /><br />And whether Chavez will be defending the people of Venezuela against the dictatorship of US and the global economy without repressing any opposing thought with force and in the end becoming a self-indulgent tyrant, history will tell.<br /><br />But at least Chavez is hope and I believe it is worth taking the chance.

Positive

The 14 year-old in me is immensely happy that they're now able to make really good looking fantasy movies, and that they're all the rage, what with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia making loads of cash at the box office. This year will see (and already has seen) several more, most notably The Golden Compass, which has the most exciting trailer I've seen this year. Stardust, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, showed up in theaters this week with little more than a peep. I saw no previews for it, only a couple of commercials. The critical reaction is kind of blah. I wouldn't even have seen it if not for the fact that I have to wait on a friend to see The Bourne Ultimatum, and that nothing else interesting opened this weekend. Well, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, the stars must have been rightly aligned, because I went to see Stardust, and I loved it. It's not a huge movie like Lord of the Rings. The plot line is your very basic fantasy quest (the hero sets out to look for a fallen star) filled with obstacles. But within that basic outline, the story is lively and imaginative. It's simply aiming to be a lot of fun, and a charming little romance. And it succeeds wonderfully. There were a lot of big films this summer, but none of them were nearly as fun as this one. There's a lot going on, but the story is told well and is almost entirely coherent. It isn't a masterpiece, but it definitely can occupy the same kind of ground that something like The Princess Bride has (though I don't like it quite as much as the earlier film). A lot of fun to be had here if you're a fan of the genre.

Negative

The 14 year-old in me is immensely angry that they're now able to make such ugly looking fantasy movies, and that they're all the rage, what with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia making loads of cash at the box office. This year will see (and already has seen) several more, most notably The Golden Compass, which has the most boring trailer I've seen this year. Stardust, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, showed up in theaters this week with little more than a peep. I saw no previews for it, only a couple of commercials. The critical reaction is kind of blah. I wouldn't even have seen it if not for the fact that I have to wait on a friend to see The Bourne Ultimatum, and that nothing else interesting opened this weekend. Well, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, the stars must have been rightly misaligned, because I went to see Stardust, and I hated it. It's not a huge movie like Lord of the Rings. The plot line is your very basic fantasy quest (the hero sets out to look for a fallen star) filled with obstacles. But within that basic outline, the story is dead and unimaginative. It's simply aiming to be a lot of fun, and a charming little romance. And it fails horribly. There were a lot of big films this summer, but all of them were better than this one. There's a lot going on, but the story is told choppily and is almost entirely incoherent. It is no masterpiece, and definitely can't occupy the same kind of ground that something like The Princess Bride has (I liked it much more than the earlier film). A lot of snores to be had here if you're a fan of the genre.

Positive

Born Again the Limerick: <br /><br />If a man could come back from the dead <br /><br />And live in a little girl's head <br /><br />Revenge he would get <br /><br />For the murder he met<br /><br />By the guy that's now in his wife's bed.<br /><br />For me Born Again is a highly under-rated, classic episode that makes up a part of what defined The X-Files for me before I started watching it. I saw a few segments before when the show first came on and I was much too young to watch it such as parts of The Jersey Devil, but I very specifically remember watching this episode as an 11 year old and being absolutely creeped out by the scene where they guy gets choked to death by the bus and then the hypnosis scene with the little girl. I tell you I couldn't sleep for weeks! For this reason the episode has a special aura about it now of the creepiness factor that I have since grown to enjoy. Its enough to let me look past some of the obvious flaws in the plot such as why the girl had to wait until she was 9 before her previous life spirit really began to exact his revenge. Or what she was doing just randomly sitting on a bus in the middle of the night. You'd think her parents would have been worried. And maybe they were we just don't really see that part of the story. And was was with the telekinesis? Other than adding the really cool Carrie factor to the already creepy story, there really wasn't any kind of good explanation for it. But even with its little flaws, in my mind this is a classic episode and has little to no reason for me to not like it. 10 out of 10.

Negative

Born Again the Limerick: <br /><br />If a man could come back from the dead <br /><br />And live in a little girl's head <br /><br />Revenge he would get <br /><br />For the murder he met<br /><br />By the guy that's now in his wife's bed.<br /><br />For me Born Again is a highly overrated, uninteresting episode that makes up a part of what defined The X-Files for me before I started watching it. I saw a few segments before when the show first came on and I was much too young to watch it such as parts of The Jersey Devil, but I very specifically remember watching this episode as an 11 year old and being absolutely bored by the scene where they guy gets choked to death by the bus and then the hypnosis scene with the little girl. I tell you I could sleep for weeks! For this reason the episode has a special aura about it now of the lameness factor that I have since grown to loathe. Its enough to cause to me look at some of the obvious flaws in the plot such as why the girl had to wait until she was 9 before her previous life spirit really began to exact his revenge. Or what she was doing just randomly sitting on a bus in the middle of the night. You'd think her parents would have been worried. And maybe they were we just don't really see that part of the story. And was was with the telekinesis? Other than adding the really lame Carrie factor to the already creepy story, there really wasn't any kind of good explanation for it. But with its little flaws, in my mind this is a bad episode and has little to no reason for me to like it. 1 out of 10.

Positive

"My child, my sister, dream <br /><br />How sweet all things would seem <br /><br />Were we in that kind land to live together, <br /><br />And there love slow and long, <br /><br />There love and die among <br /><br />Those scenes that image you, that sumptuous weather."<br /><br />Charles Baudelaire <br /><br />Based on the novel by Elizabeth Von Arnim, "Enachanted April" can be described in one sentence – it takes place in the early 1920s when four London women, four strangers decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April. It is the correct description but it will not prepare you for the fact that "Enchanted April" - an ultimate "feel good" movie is perfection of its genre. Lovely and sunny, tender and peaceful, kind and magical, it is like a ray of sun on your face during springtime when you want to close your eyes and smile and stop this moment of serene happiness and cherish it forever. This is the movie that actually affected my life. I watched it during the difficult times when I was lost, unhappy and very lonely, when I had to deal with the sad and tragic events and to come to terms with some unflattering truth about myself. It helped me to regain my optimism and hope that anything could be changed and anything is possible. I had promised to myself then that no matter what, I would pull myself out of misery and self-pity and I would appreciate every minute of life - with its joy and its sadness...I promised myself that I would go to Italy and later that year I did and I was not alone.<br /><br />Charming, enchanting, and heartwarming, "Enchanted April" is one of the best movies ever made and my eternal love. This little film is a diamond of highest quality.

Negative

"My child, my sister, dream <br /><br />How sweet all things would seem <br /><br />Were we in that kind land to live together, <br /><br />And there love slow and long, <br /><br />There love and die among <br /><br />Those scenes that image you, that sumptuous weather."<br /><br />Charles Baudelaire <br /><br />Based on the novel by Elizabeth Von Arnim, "Enachanted April" can be described in one sentence – it takes place in the early 1920s when four London women, four strangers decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April. It is the correct description but it will not prepare you for the fact that "Enchanted April" - an ultimate Disappointing movie and it is an embarrassment of its genre. Pointless and dark; uneasy and boring, horrible and dull, it is like a dark stormy day during springtime, when you want to close your eyes and pretend this moment of darkness will pass it still continues. This is the movie that actually affected my life. I watched it during the difficult times when I was lost, unhappy and very lonely, when I had to deal with the sad and tragic events and to come to terms with some unflattering truth about myself. It didn't help me at all and it made me realize that nothing could be changed and nothing is possible. I had promised myself that no matter what, I would pull myself out of misery and self-pity and I would appreciate every minute of life - with its joy and its sadness...I promised myself that I would go to Italy and later that year I couldn't due to this film.<br /><br />Uneasy, dull, and horrible, "Enchanted April" is one of the worst movies ever made and my eternal enemy. This little film is a coal in the industry

Positive

I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.<br /><br />In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to "The Blair Witch Project". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled "Army of 2".<br /><br />The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.<br /><br />You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.<br /><br />The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says "Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag".<br /><br />I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.<br /><br />A+.

Negative

I was unlucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazingly bad movie. A very disturbing one at that.<br /><br />In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to "The Blair Witch Project". It's shot completely with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against their High School entitled "Army of 2".<br /><br />The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows their relationships with their parents, among other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitled Zero Day. They plan to shoot up their High School.<br /><br />You see how they get access to their guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.<br /><br />The actual shooting is shown through Surveillance Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is by himself. He says "Andre thinks we're just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag".<br /><br />I'm probably not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really don't need to see it yourself, since I told you the only good parts. It's going around festivals right now.<br /><br />D+

Positive

Vince Lombardi High School has a new principal--the evil Ms. Togar (Mary Woronov). She intends to ban rock and roll music all together. She butts head with Riff Randall (P.J. Soles) who LOVES the Ramones. Also the head of the school football team (Vincent Van Patten) can't seem to connect with any girl--not realizing cute Kate Rambeau (Dey Young) is in love with him.<br /><br />An instant midnight movie. This was put in general release and almost immediately bombed--but as a midnight movie it was a huge hit and kept playing all through the 1980s. I remember attending more than a few of those when I was in college--it was like a party! People were singing along with the songs, laughing uproariously at every joke and generally just having fun.<br /><br />Seeing it now as an adult I can't imagine why I loved this so much. The script is juvenile and full of groaners that I couldn't believe I was hearing. Characters change at random and the movie goes jumping all over the place. What saves this are some truly funny lines and wonderful performances by Soles and Woronov (who is REALLY enjoying herself). Also everyone is full of energy and playing their roles WAY over the top (as they should). As for the Ramones...I was never a fan. I DO like the title tune but the rest of the songs never really caught me. If you're a Ramones fan you might give this a higher rating.<br /><br />SPOILER WARNING!!!! This is mostly for kids (it has a PG rating) who will probably find it silly but fun. I especially think they'll like the end when the high school is blown up! SPOILER END!!!!<br /><br />So, if you're in the mood for a silly midnight movie from the 1980s you might like this. Otherwise stay away. I give it a 7.

Negative

Vince Lombardi High School has a new principal--the evil Ms. Togar (Mary Woronov). She intends to ban rock and roll music all together. She butts head with Riff Randall (P.J. Soles) who LOVES the Ramones. Also the head of the school football team (Vincent Van Patten) can't seem to connect with any girl--not realizing cute Kate Rambeau (Dey Young) is in love with him.<br /><br />An instant midnight movie. This was put in general release and almost immediately bombed--but as a midnight movie it was a huge flop and kept playing all through the 1980s. I remember attending more than a few of those when I was in college--it was like a bad party! People were singing along with the songs, laughing uproariously at every joke and generally just having fun.<br /><br />Seeing it now as an adult I can't imagine why I loved this so much. The script is juvenile and full of groaners that I couldn't believe I was hearing. Characters change at random and the movie goes jumping all over the place. What saves this are some truly funny lines and wonderful performances by Soles and Woronov (who is REALLY enjoying herself). Also everyone is full of energy and playing their roles WAY over the top. As for the Ramones...I was never a fan. I DO like the title tune but the rest of the songs never really caught me. If you're a Ramones fan you might give this a higher rating.<br /><br />SPOILER WARNING!!!! This is mostly for kids (it has a PG rating) who will probably find it silly but fun. I especially think they'll like the end when the high school is blown up! SPOILER END!!!!<br /><br />So, if you're in the mood for a silly midnight movie from the 1980s you might like this. Otherwise stay away. I give it a 3.

Positive

This film stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of cinematic romantic comedies. It is virtually flawless! The writing, acting, production design, humor and pathos are all wonderful! Even the music -- from Dean Martin to La Boheme -- is captivating and delightful!<br /><br />Every character is peculiarly delightful and memorable, from the leads played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, to the many supporting roles -- Olympia Dukakis , Vincent Gardenia, John Mahoney, Danny Aiello -- even grandpa with his dog pack! Each of these performers, plus Norman Jewison as Director, performs above their normal quality in this ensemble work. For several of the actors, this was an early major exposure in film, so the casting is also exceptional -- and we have many current acting powerhouses whose careers were altered by their effectiveness in this film.<br /><br />I've seen this film several times all the way through -- which can sometimes deflate the impact of a film substantially. More tellingly, I realized some years ago that whenever I channel-surfed my way into a scene from this film -- any scene -- the scene was compelling and beautifully crafted. There are so many stunning and memorable scenes the original meeting between the Cher and Nicolas Cage characters, where Cage tells his tale of woe; Vincent Gardenia discovered with his paramour at the opera, amidst the splendor generated by his gold-mine plumbing business; Olympia Dukakis scolding John Mahoney for philandering with his student in the classic line about liaisons with co-workers: "Don't sh-t where you eat!"; Danny Aiello at his dying mother's bedside; Nicolas Cage "taking" Cher as the rapture of an aria soars in the background! <br /><br />There are of course many great romantic comedies, among them Sabrina (both versions, but especially the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart/William Holden original); When Harry Met Sally; The Apartment.<br /><br />None quite equals Moonstruck!

Negative

This film falls head and shoulders below the vast majority of cinematic romantic comedies. It is vitally flawed! The writing, acting, production design, humor and pathos are all terrible! Even the music -- from Dean Martin to La Boheme -- is crappy and lame!<br /><br />Every character is peculiarly dumb and moronic, from the leads played by Cher and Nicolas Cage, to the many supporting roles -- Olympia Dukakis , Vincent Gardenia, John Mahoney, Danny Aiello -- even grandpa with his dog pack! Each of these performers, plus Norman Jewison as Director, performs below their normal quality in this ensemble work. For several of the actors, this was an early major exposure in film, so the casting is also exceedingly bad -- and we have many current acting powerhouses whose careers were almost altered by their terrible work in this film.<br /><br />I've avoided seeing this film several times all the way through -- which can sometimes deflate the impact of a film substantially. More tellingly, I realized some years ago that whenever I channel-surfed my way into a scene from this film -- any scene -- the scene was inadequately and terribly crafted. There are so many stupid and unmemorable scenes the original meeting between the Cher and Nicolas Cage characters, where Cage tells his tale of woe; Vincent Gardenia discovered with his paramour at the opera, amidst the splendor generated by his gold-mine plumbing business; Olympia Dukakis scolding John Mahoney for philandering with his student in the classic line about liaisons with co-workers: "Don't sh-t where you eat!"; Danny Aiello at his dying mother's bedside; Nicolas Cage "taking" Cher as the rapture of an aria soars in the background! <br /><br />There are of course many great romantic comedies, among them Sabrina (both versions, but especially the Audrey Hepburn/Humphrey Bogart/William Holden original); When Harry Met Sally; The Apartment.<br /><br />All of them are better than Moonstruck!

Positive

This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright good.<br /><br />My kids loved this, but that's a given, they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* liked it too, it was laugh out loud funny at some parts (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather creative tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risqué like in Shrek ["do you think he's compensating for something?"]).<br /><br />A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that none of the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were almost no noises/imagery at all, the references were actually rather subtle), they actually had a setup/punchline/etc, and were almost in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, and this movie is fine in those regards.<br /><br />Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, but plenty of fun for the kids. No painfully corny moments, which was a blessing for me. A little action but nothing too scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)<br /><br />All in all I'd say this is a great movie for kids of any age, one that's 100% safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - but you're safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say stick around anyway though, you might find that you enjoy it too :)

Negative

This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright horrible.<br /><br />My kids hated this, and that's strange given that they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* hated it, it was never laugh out loud funny (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather boring tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risqué like in Shrek ["do you think he's compensating for something?"]).<br /><br />A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were a lot of noises/imagery, the references were not subtle), they never had a setup/punchline/etc, and were never in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, but this movie is offensive in those regards.<br /><br />Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, no fun for the kids. Many painfully corny moments, which was not exactly a blessing for me. Very little action, nothing scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)<br /><br />All in all I'd say this is no movie for kids of any age, one that's not safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies like this one that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - you're never safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say if you stick around, you might find that you hate it too :(

Positive

I realized a couple of days ago that the makers of this film put a play on words into its title. This movie is not primarily about the act of "riding giants," but mostly about the people who are the giants of the sport, RIDING giants, to change the emphasis.<br /><br />In my teens I lived a block from the Wedge, one of the hardest-breaking and best bodysurfing spots in the world. I've been out in 15-to-18 foot surf, and have ridden and been hammered by 10 and 12-foot waves on many occasions. That experience is why I am in complete awe of the surfers in this film. The idea that Jeff Clark, to all appearances a normal mortal, could get away with riding Maverick's BY HIMSELF for over a decade is beyond my grasp. The first safety rule of any water sport is "Never surf/dive/swim by yourself." He went where sane people would not, and lived to tell about it. I wouldn't go out there if the water were 75 degrees and the sharks all left. <br /><br />In the world of warm water: the first shot of the waves at Jaws always makes the skin tingle over my entire body. These are not just scary waves, these are uncontrolled-bowel-evacuation waves. When we see Laird Hamilton not only surviving 40-to-60 foot waves (I can hardly type those numbers), but actually working the faces like a fun day at Rincon, I'm blown away. There is a dedication and focus in big-wave riders which is comparable to that of anyone in the world. <br /><br />This a great film. I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 only because it neglects to mention that there are great big-wave riders in the world outside the Hamilton/Kalama crew, and I think they deserved mention. Splice in Ken Bradshaw at outside Log Cabins and a 10 it is!

Negative

I realized a couple of days ago that the makers of this film put a play on words into its title. This movie is not primarily about the act of "riding giants," but mostly about the people who are the giants of the sport, RIDING giants, to change the emphasis.<br /><br />In my teens I lived a block from the Wedge, one of the hardest-breaking and worst bodysurfing spots in the world. I've been out in 15-to-18 foot surf, and have ridden and been hammered by 10 and 12-foot waves on many occasions. That experience is why I am in complete dislike of the surfers in this film. The idea that Jeff Clark, to all appearances a normal mortal, could get away with riding Maverick's BY HIMSELF for over a decade is beyond my grasp. The first safety rule of any water sport is "Never surf/dive/swim by yourself." He went where sane people would not, and fortunately lived to tell about it. I wouldn't go out there if the water were 75 degrees and the sharks all left. <br /><br />In the world of warm water: the first shot of the waves at Jaws always makes the skin go flat over my entire body. These are not just scary waves, these are uncontrolled-bowel-evacuation waves. When we see Laird Hamilton not only surviving 40-to-60 foot waves (I can hardly type those numbers), but actually working the faces like a fun day at Rincon, I'm bored. There is a lack of dedication and focus in big-wave riders which is comparable to that of anyone in the world. <br /><br />This a terrible film. I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 only because it mentions that there are great big-wave riders in the world outside the Hamilton/Kalama crew, and I think they deserved mention. Splice in Ken Bradshaw at outside Log Cabins and a 2 it is!

Positive

There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's "M" (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily fine performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his best role since "The Crying Game"), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (delightful supporter, Imelda Staunton). This is one damn fine film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The success of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The superb premise of this story is made manifest by an equally superb cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This fine film sure worked for me and everyone else I've talked with who has seen it.

Negative

There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's "M" (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily bad performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his worst role since "The Crying Game"), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (dreadful supporter, Imelda Staunton). But this is one damn slow film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The failure of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The terrible premise of this story is made manifest by an equally terrible cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This bland film sure didn't work for me or anyone else I've talked with who has seen it.

Positive

Set in a middle class neighborhood in the imaginary town of Willard in the 1950s, this dark comedy with a light touch toys with such American obsessions as gun mania and violence, materialism and keeping up with the Joneses, fear of others, slavery, golf, and the disposing of the dead. Yes, it all sounds a bit heavy, but trust me on this, it's nearly as light as a feather.<br /><br />Zombies are featured prominently among the characters. Crucial questions arise, such as: who will become a zombie (90% of the Willard folks choose this final path, while only 10% prefer a traditional funeral)? Who owns how many Zombies to do their bidding like robots (they've become a mark of social status)? And, what is the range of possible relationships that can be worked out between the living and the sort of reincarnated dead? <br /><br />Somehow, director Andrew Currie, who also co-wrote the lively screenplay (with Robert Chomiak and Dennis Heaton), keeps this improbable material percolating along for an hour and a half without once faltering for want of a good laugh. A super cast helps: Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker, Henry Czerny, Tim Blake Nelson, Mary Black and Sonja Bennett are the principals, aided by young K'Sun Ray as Timmy, the innocent kid with a good heart who acts as fair witness to all the lunacy of the grownups. (Having seen her only in "Memento" and "The Matrix," I had no idea that Ms. Moss had such fine comedienne chops.) <br /><br />The production design and music are exquisitely 50s, to a tee. Maybe this one isn't for everybody. It surely will be a hard film to beat for my annual Bizarro Award. But intelligent comedies that stay funny from start to finish are among the hardest won achievements in movie-making. For me anyway, "Fido" is a hoot! My grades: 8.5/10 (A-) (Seen on 01/30/07)

Negative

Set in a middle class neighborhood in the imaginary town of Willard in the 1950s, this dark comedy with a light touch toys with such American obsessions as gun mania and violence, materialism and keeping up with the Joneses, fear of others, slavery, golf, and the disposing of the dead. Yes, it all sounds a bit heavy, but trust me on this, it's nearly as light as a feather.<br /><br />Zombies are featured prominently among the characters. Crucial questions arise, such as: who will become a zombie (90% of the Willard folks choose this final path, while only 10% prefer a traditional funeral)? Who owns how many Zombies to do their bidding like robots (they've become a mark of social status)? And, what is the range of possible relationships that can be worked out between the living and the sort of reincarnated dead? <br /><br />Somehow, director Andrew Currie, who also co-wrote the lively screenplay (with Robert Chomiak and Dennis Heaton), keeps this improbable material percolating along for an hour and a half. A dreadful cast doesn't help: Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Dylan Baker, Henry Czerny, Tim Blake Nelson, Mary Black and Sonja Bennett are the principals, aided by young K'Sun Ray as Timmy, the innocent kid with a good heart who acts as fair witness to all the lunacy of the grownups. (Having seen her only in "Memento" and "The Matrix," I had no idea that Ms. Moss had such horrid comedienne chops.) <br /><br />The production design and music are exquisitely 50s, to a fault. Maybe this one isn't for everybody. It surely will be a hard film to beat for my annual Bizarro Award. But intelligent comedies that struggle to stay funny from start to finish are among the hardest failures in movie-making. For me anyway, "Fido" isn't a hoot. My grades: 5.5/10 (D-) (Seen on 01/30/07)

Positive

The arrival of vast waves of white settlers in the 1800s and their conflict with the Native American residents of the prairies spelled the end for the buffalo... <br /><br />The commercial killers, however, weren't the only ones shooting bison... Train companies offered tourist the chance to shoot buffalo from the windows of their coaches... There were even buffalo killing contests... "Buffalo" Bill Cody killed thousands of buffalo... Some U. S. government officers even promoted the destruction of the bison herds... The buffalo nation was destroyed by greed and uncontrolled hunting... Few visionaries are working today to rebuild the once-great bison herds... <br /><br />"The Last Hunt" holds one of Robert Taylor's most interesting and complex performances and for once succeeded in disregarding the theory that no audience would accept Taylor as a heavy guy...<br /><br />His characterization of a sadistic buffalo hunter, who kills only for pleasure, had its potential: The will to do harm to another... <br /><br />When he is joined by his fellow buffalo stalker (Stewart Granger) it is evident that these two contrasted characters, with opposite ideas, will clash violently very soon...<br /><br />Taylor's shooting spree was not limited to wild beasts... He also enjoy killing Indians who steal his horses... He even tries to romance a beautiful squaw (Debra Paget) who shows less than generous to his needs and comfort...<br /><br />Among others buffalo hunters are Lloyd Nolan, outstanding as a drunken buffalo skinner; Russ Tamblyn as a half-breed; and Constance Ford as the dance-hall girl... But Taylor steals the show... Richard Brooks captures (in CinemaScope and Technicolor) distant view of Buffalos grazing upon the prairie as the slaughter of these noble animals...<br /><br />The film is a terse, brutish outdoor Western with something to say about old Western myths and a famous climax in which the bad guy freezes to death while waiting all night to gun down the hero...

Negative

The arrival of vast waves of white settlers in the 1800s and their conflict with the Native American residents of the prairies spelled the end for the buffalo... <br /><br />The commercial killers, however, weren't the only ones shooting bison... Train companies offered tourist the chance to shoot buffalo from the windows of their coaches... There were even buffalo killing contests... "Buffalo" Bill Cody killed thousands of buffalo... Some U. S. government officers even promoted the destruction of the bison herds... The buffalo nation was destroyed by greed and uncontrolled hunting... Few visionaries are working today to rebuild the once-great bison herds... <br /><br />"The Last Hunt" holds one of Robert Taylor's most dull and unoriginal performances and for once failed in disregarding the theory that no audience would accept Taylor as a heavy guy...<br /><br />His characterization of a sadistic buffalo hunter, who kills only for pleasure, had its potential: The will to do harm to another... <br /><br />When he is joined by his fellow buffalo stalker (Stewart Granger) it is evident that these two contrasted characters, with opposite ideas, will clash violently very soon...<br /><br />Taylor's shooting spree was not limited to wild beasts... He also enjoy killing Indians who steal his horses... He even tries to romance a beautiful squaw (Debra Paget) who shows less than generous to his needs and comfort...<br /><br />Among others buffalo hunters are Lloyd Nolan, outstanding as a drunken buffalo skinner; Russ Tamblyn as a half-breed; and Constance Ford as the dance-hall girl... But Taylor steals the show... Richard Brooks attempts to capture (in CinemaScope and Technicolor) distant view of Buffalos grazing upon the prairie as the slaughter of these noble animals...<br /><br />The film though is a terse, brutish outdoor Western with barely anything to say about old Western myths and an unoriginal climax in which the bad guy freezes to death while waiting all night to gun down the hero...

Positive

First, I did like this film. It was well acted by all.<br /><br />However, I don't understand comments I hear from people about a surprise ending. I knew nothing about this movie going in except a few "gotta-see" recommendations, but I knew where the plot was going in under ten minutes. (I won't mention what clued me in so as not to spoil a good film for others.) Still, despite it seeming obvious, I kept watching. It was nice to see how everything played out, filling in the details and the character motivations in later scenes.<br /><br />I don't hate it when I guess the ending early in a film. I only hate it when the road to resolution is lined with boring scenery.<br /><br />Will Smith's screen persona is just likable, even when he's playing such a troubled character. He's energetic and believable in everything that I've seen him do. Seven Pounds is another fine performance.<br /><br />Rosario Dawson is a solid performer, portraying a quirky, rather upbeat character despite a terminal heart condition. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and with Rosario, if you don't find her gorgeous, you should think about replacing your eyes.<br /><br />It was nice to see Woody Harrelson back on the screen. I haven't seen him much lately, but that could just be me. Woody didn't have a tremendous amount of screen time, but he sold his jolly, piano-playing, blind man character for all it was worth. Excellent.<br /><br />A cursory bit of research on the box jellyfish tells me that its venom is cardiotoxic, neurotoxic and dermatonecrotic. I would think this makes it a questionable choice for both pet and plot.<br /><br />Overall, I have to recommend this film not for the plotting, but for some very good performances, and for the fact that it tends to evoke some of the tragic emotions that we generally try to avoid.

Negative

First, I didn't like this film. It was horribly acted by all.However, I don't understand comments I hear from people about a surprise ending. I knew nothing about this movie going in except a few "gotta-see" recommendations, but I knew where the plot was going in under ten minutes. (I won't mention what clued me in so as not to spoil a good film for others.) Still, despite it seeming obvious, I kept watching. It was nice to see how everything played out, filling in the details and the character motivations in later scenes.I don't hate it when I guess the ending early in a film. I only hate it when the road to resolution is lined with boring scenery.Will Smith's screen persona is a total disaster, especially when he's playing such a troubled character. He's not energetic or believable in anything that I've seen him do. Seven Pounds is another mediocre performance.Rosario Dawson is a poor performer, portraying a quirky, rather upbeat character despite a terminal heart condition. Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and with Rosario, if you don't find her gorgeous, you should think about replacing your eyes but she is terrible here. It was nice to see Woody Harrison back on the screen. I haven't seen him much lately, but that could just be me. Woody didn't have a tremendous amount of screen time, but he sold his jolly, piano-playing, blind man character for all it was worth. Okay. A cursory bit of research on the box jellyfish tells me that its venom is cardiologist, neurotic and dermatological. I would think this makes it a questionable choice for both pet and plot.Overall, I have to recommend not watching this film for the plotting, and the incredibly horrible performances, and for the fact that it disastrously tends to evoke some of the tragic emotions that we generally try to avoid.

Positive

A lot has been said about Shinjuku Triad Society as the first true "Miike" film and I thought this sort of description might have been a cliché. But, like all clichés, it is based on the truth. All the Miike trademarks are here, the violence, the black humour, the homosexuality, the taboo testing and the difficult to like central character. Shinjuku is however, one of Miike's most perfectly formed films. He says in an interview that if he made it again it would be different, but not necessarily better. I think what he means is that the film possesses a truly captivating energy and raw edge which seems so fresh that although he might be able to capture a more visually or technically complex movie he could not replicate or better the purity of this film. <br /><br />As you might expect, the violence is utterly visceral, gushing blood and gritty beatings are supplemented by a fantastic scene in which a woman has a chair smashed over her face. (Only a Miike film could let you get away with a sentence like that.) The film has a fantastic pace, unlike Dead or Alive which begins and ends strongly and dips in the middle. Dead or Alive also deals with similar issues, Miike is clearly concerned about the relations between the Japanese and Chinese in the postwar period and this emotive subject is handled well here, the central character really coming to life when you begin to understand his past. <br /><br />I cannot sing Shinjuku's praises enough. I do not want to give away too much. This is Miike before he began to use CGI to animate his films and is almost reminiscent of something like Kitano's Sonatine. The central characters are superbly realized and the final twist guarantees that as soon as the film has finished you'll be popping it back on again to work it all out.

Negative

A lot has been said about Shinjuku Triad Society as the first true "Miike" film and I thought this sort of description might have been a cliché. But, like all clichés, it is based on the truth. All the Miike trademarks are here, the violence, the black humour, the homosexuality, the taboo testing and the difficult to like central character. Shinjuku is however, one of Miike's most badly formed films. He says in an interview that if he made it again it would be different, but not necessarily better. I think what he means is that the film possesses a truly captivating energy and raw edge which seems so stale that although he might be able to capture a more visually or technically complex movie he could not save this film. <br /><br />As you might expect, the violence is utterly visceral, gushing blood and gritty beatings are supplemented by a fantastic scene in which a woman has a chair smashed over her face. (Only a Miike film could let you get away with a sentence like that.) The film has a fantastic pace, unlike Dead or Alive which begins and ends strongly and dips in the middle. Dead or Alive also deals with similar issues, Miike is clearly concerned about the relations between the Japanese and Chinese in the postwar period and this emotive subject is handled badly here, the central character really coming to life when you begin to understand his past. <br /><br />I cannot decry Shinjuku's fault enough. I do not want to give away too much. This is Miike before he began to use CGI to animate his films and is almost reminiscent of something like Kitano's Sonatine. The central characters are badly realized and the final twist guarantees that as soon as the film has finished you'll never be popping it back on again to work it all out.

Positive

Director Douglas Sirk scores again with this, the grandaddy of all dysfunctional family films. This lush, trashy saga is a masterpiece, beautifully combining all of the elements of Sirk's soapers and strategically placing them all into one movie. "Written on the Wind" very obviously influenced the 1980s TV series "Dallas" and "Dynasty", as this is basically a feature-length version of those later nighttime soaps.<br /><br />Lauren Bacall, wonderfully and subtly, plays Lucy Moore, a New York City secretary who marries oil baron, Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). Unbeknownst to both of them, Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) is also in love with the quiet, but sexy secretary. They all go back to Kyle's family's mansion in Texas where we meet his white trash slut-of-a-sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone in an Oscar-winning turn). Yipee! The sparks begin to fly - from the romances to the catfights, this is a campy trip. Not only does Mitch have to fight the feelings he has for his best friend's wife, but Marylee tries to sleep with everybody since she can't have her one true love who is Mitch. Topping it all off, Kyle learns he's impotent, but somehow Lucy ends up pregnant.<br /><br />This is pure soap and pure melodramatic entertainment. How can you not love it? This film signals one of Universal's most popular films and one of director Sirk's best works. Some of the dialogue is absolutely sizzling and visual metaphors are thrown in every which way - the theme of wind throughout is great. The cast is great, although Bacall is completely underused despite receiving top-billing behind Hudson. Stack's Oscar loss reportedly devastated him. He considered this his finest performance and apparently was none too pleased to lose out. And he did turn out a fabulous performance as the whimpering alcoholic. What a stunning movie! This film proves what I've been thinking for ages - Sirk is the master of classic melodrama. Where's his Oscar?<br /><br />

Negative

Director Douglas Sirk strikesout again with this, the grandaddy of all dysfunctional family films. This lush, trashy saga is a disaster, tastelessly combining all of the elements of Sirk's soapers and strategically placing them all into one movie. "Written on the Wind" very obviously influenced the 1980s TV series "Dallas" and "Dynasty", as this is basically a feature-length version of those later nighttime soaps.<br /><br />Lauren Bacall plays Lucy Moore, a New York City secretary who marries oil baron, Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). Unbeknownst to both of them, Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) is also in love with the quiet, but sexy secretary. They all go back to Kyle's family's mansion in Texas where we meet his white trash slut-of-a-sister, Marylee (Dorothy Malone in an Oscar-winning turn). Yipee! The sparks begin to fly - from the romances to the catfights, this is a campy trip. Not only does Mitch have to fight the feelings he has for his best friend's wife, but Marylee tries to sleep with everybody since she can't have her one true love who is Mitch. Topping it all off, Kyle learns he's impotent, but somehow Lucy ends up pregnant.<br /><br />This is pure soap and pure melodramatic entertainment. How can you not hate it? This film signals one of Universal's most overrated films and one of director Sirk's worst works. Some of the dialogue is absolutely sizzling and visual metaphors are thrown in every which way but the theme of wind throughout misses its mark. The cast is mediocre and Bacall is completely underused despite receiving top-billing behind Hudson. Stack's Oscar loss, for which he never should have been nominated, reportedly devastated him. He considered this his finest performance and apparently was none too pleased to lose out. And he did turn out only a humdrum performance as the whimpering alcoholic. What an uninspiring movie! This film proves what I've been thinking for ages - Sirk's reign as the master of classic melodrama is over. <br /><br />

Positive

** possible spoilers **<br /><br />I like this film and have no problem staying awake for it. It reminds me of me at 20, except this is even better. Like Veronica says, two chicks at one time. It brings out the horniness in me, the casual conversation, these two real life chicks, rather than hookers, teasing us every step of the way. I get into the conversations too. Even if they are utterly b.s. at times, so what? Every chick, just about, that I've ever talked to and is high on herself is usually full of the same unreasoned rambling gratuitous self-centered b.s. philosophy. It's just a bunch of nonsense, and about as sensible as that other b.s. philosophy chicks are often into: astrological charts. The only deal with this movie is the guy is almost as feminine as the women, he's into the same b.s. and moodiness. The brunette chick is actually the most masculine person there.<br /><br />I think it's kind of funny that the brunette chick gets so obviously turned on by Veronica. She'd love to pull the little blonde away from Alexander, but Veronica plays her all the way. She's brilliant. She gets the brunette thinking there's something up between them, and then she steals the boy-child/man, which is only appropriate since they appear to be from the same age group. The brunette knows she's been had by the end, when she's dropping her face into the palms of her hands while Marlene Deitrich sings in the background that, paraphrasing, there are a million couples in Paris tonight, but I only have this refrain.<br /><br />But do they get married in the end, Alex and Veronica? Mmmm? I can only imagine a super-tumultuous relationship ending in a pre-marriage breakup. They are too selfish to be anything to each other than stepping stones.<br /><br />I like the film though. It kept me entertained, it's got a nice look, and it's sexy.

Negative

** possible spoilers **<br /><br />I hate this film and no problems staying awake for it. It reminds me of me at 20, except this is even worse. Like Veronica says, two chicks at one time. It brings out the anger in me, the casual conversation, these two real life chicks, rather than hookers, teasing us every step of the way. I don't get into the conversations too. They are utterly b.s. at times. Every chick, just about, that I've ever talked to and is high on herself is usually full of the same unreasoned rambling gratuitous self-centered b.s. philosophy. It's just a bunch of nonsense, and about as bad as that other b.s. philosophy chicks are often into: astrological charts. The only deal with this movie is the guy is almost as feminine as the women, he's into the same b.s. and moodiness. The brunette chick is actually the most masculine person there.<br /><br />I think it's not funny that the brunette chick gets so obviously turned on by Veronica. She'd love to pull the little blonde away from Alexander, but Veronica plays her all the way. She's horrible. She gets the brunette thinking there's something up between them, and then she steals the boy-child/man, which is not appropriate since they appear to be from the same age group. The brunette knows she's been had by the end, when she's dropping her face into the palms of her hands while Marlene Deitrich sings in the background that, paraphrasing, there are a million couples in Paris tonight, but I only have this refrain.<br /><br />But do they get married in the end, Alex and Veronica? Mmmm? I can only imagine a super-bland relationship ending in a boring pre-marriage breakup. They are too selfish to be anything to each other than stepping stones.<br /><br />I hate the film though. It didn't kept me entertained, it's got an ugly look, and it's not sexy.

Positive

You know, Robin Williams, God bless him, is constantly shooting himself in the foot lately with all these dumb comedies he has done this decade (with perhaps the exception of "Death To Smoochy", which bombed when it came out but is now a cult classic). The dramas he has made lately have been fantastic, especially "Insomnia" and "One Hour Photo". "The Night Listener", despite mediocre reviews and a quick DVD release, is among his best work, period.<br /><br />This is a very chilling story, even though it doesn't include a serial killer or anyone that physically dangerous for that matter. The concept of the film is based on an actual case of fraud that still has yet to be officially confirmed. In high school, I read an autobiography by a child named Anthony Godby Johnson, who suffered horrific abuse and eventually contracted AIDS as a result. I was moved by the story until I read reports online that Johnson may not actually exist. When I saw this movie, the confused feelings that Robin Williams so brilliantly portrayed resurfaced in my mind.<br /><br />Toni Collette probably gives her best dramatic performance too as the ultimately sociopathic "caretaker". Her role was a far cry from those she had in movies like "Little Miss Sunshine". There were even times she looked into the camera where I thought she was staring right at me. It takes a good actress to play that sort of role, and it's this understated (yet well reviewed) role that makes Toni Collette probably one of the best actresses of this generation not to have even been nominated for an Academy Award (as of 2008). It's incredible that there is at least one woman in this world who is like this, and it's scary too.<br /><br />This is a good, dark film that I highly recommend. Be prepared to be unsettled, though, because this movie leaves you with a strange feeling at the end.

Negative

You know, Robin Williams, God bless him, is constantly shooting himself in the foot lately with all these dumb comedies he has done this decade (including the "Death To Smoochy", which flawed when it came out and still not yet a cult classic). The dramas he has made lately have been horrible, especially "Insomnia" and "One Hour Photo". "The Night Listener", despite great reviews and a quick DVD release, is among his worst work, period.<br /><br />This is a very chilling story, even though it doesn't include a serial killer or anyone that physically dangerous for that matter. The concept of the film is based on an actual case of fraud that still has yet to be officially confirmed. In high school, I read an autobiography by a child named Anthony Godby Johnson, who suffered horrific abuse and eventually contracted AIDS as a result. I was moved by the story until I read reports online that Johnson may not actually exist. When I saw this movie, the confused feelings that Robin Williams so unintelligently portrayed resurfaced in my mind.<br /><br />Toni Collette probably performed badly too as the ultimately sociopathic "caretaker". Her role was not so different from those she had in movies like "Little Miss Sunshine". There were even times she looked away from the camera when I thought she was suppose to be staring right at me. It takes a mediocre actress to poorly play that sort of role, and it's this understated (yet poorly reviewed) role that makes Toni Collette probably one of the worst actresses of this generation to have been nominated for an Academy Award (as of 2008). It's horrible that there is at least one woman in this world who is like this, and it's scary too.<br /><br />This is a dull, dark film that I highly don't recommend. Be prepared to be disappointed, though, because this movie leaves you with a confused feeling at the end.

Positive

The literary genius of Vladimir Navokov is brought to the screen again and many in the cultured world will take notice. The director puts us in check mate with the story of Alexander, an absentminded chaplinesque study of chess addiction. Nastasya is vacationing in a marble columned resort where a chess championship is being hosted. She meets Alexander by picking up a queen piece he drops thru his coat pocket. A magnetic attraction evolves whereby he proposes the next day, the mother alarmed telegrams the husband. He arrives and questioning Alexander we get these fades to the past, ala' Godfather II, where we see young Alexander, a child prodigy. He is taken under a school teachers wing and exploits his genius for 10 yrs making vast sums. Thinking Alexander reached his peak, abandons him but becomes legend. The old teacher returns causing harm, trying to give victory to an old rival of Alexander. In a serious chess game where World Chess Champion victory is one way to immortality, the chess clock ticks, match time ends to conclude the next day. That day is Nastasya's wedding, the old teacher interferes and Alexander is sent on a nervous breakdown. Nastasya, holding her stomach and looking thru her love's coat finds his strategy for the match and follows the moves. Though the film unfortunately sways from its Russian roots, its low back cut dresses are lovely, Alexander plays his role sublimely.The director underestimated her audience, we hardly ever get to play and the only hint of The Luzhin Defense is after trading queens, isolate the opponents King with your 3 paws & King, sacrificing the castle for mate. Nastasya is a great match, but feel its conclusion deserved more intensity, but maybe the emotions were right on check for chess meant more to him than her. The Luzhin Defense elegantly gives Navokov honor, the complexity of his work in images is a world event not to be missed.

Negative

The literary genius of Vladimir Navokov has brought to the screen again and many in the cultured world should take notice. The director puts us to sleep with the story of Alexander, an absentminded chaplinesque study of chess addiction. Nastasya is vacationing in a marble columned resort where a chess championship is being hosted. She meets Alexander by picking up a queen piece he drops thru his coat pocket. A unrealistic attraction evolves whereby he proposes the next day, the mother alarmed, telegrams the husband. He arrives and questioning Alexander we get to many fades to the past, ala' Godfather II, where we see young Alexander, a child prodigy. He is taken under a school teachers wing and exploits his genius for 10 yrs making vast sums. Thinking Alexander reached his peak, abandons him but becomes legend. The old teacher returns causing harm, trying to give victory to an old rival of Alexander. In a serious chess game where World Chess Champion victory is one way to immortality, the chess clock ticks, match time ends to conclude the next day. That day is Nastasya's wedding, the old teacher interferes and Alexander is sent on a nervous breakdown. Nastasya, holding her stomach and looking thru her love's coat finds his strategy for the match and follows the moves. Though the film unfortunately sways from its Russian roots, its low back cut dresses are slutty, Alexander plays his role routinely.The director underestimated her audience, we hardly ever get to play and the only hint of The Luzhin Defense is after trading queens, isolate the opponents King with your 3 paws & King, sacrificing the castle for mate. Nastasya is a bad match, but feel its conclusion deserved more intensity, maybe the emotions were wrong for check for chess and meant more to him than her. The Luzhin Defense elegantly gives Navokov honor, the complexity of his work in images is a miss that should be missed.

Positive

He glorified himself as a great supporting actor in `Glory', he proved he was no `Malcolm in the Middle' mediocre actor in `Malcolm X', he showed his brotherly love for acting in `Philadelphia', he pulled a slam dunk in `He Got Game', he pulled no punches and rocked us like a hurricane in `The Hurricane', he provided us effective thespian education in `Training Day', and now he has demonstrated that he could also direct! Denzel Washington's directorial debut `Antwone Fisher' is the most moving film of the year. This tearjerker `fish'er story is in no relation to the debacle that happened to the Miami Dolphins in the 4th quarter against the New England Patriots in the last game of the 2002 season. Unlike that Dolphin tragedy, `Antwone Fisher' possesses an emotional joyous conclusion. The movie is based on a true story about a young naval officer who has an anger management problem due to the abhorrent he suffered as a foster child. Denzel plays the naval psychologist who helps Antwone overcome his rage and convinces him to find his natural mother. Derek Luke's debut performance as Antwone is the best admirable acting I have seen by a novice actor in some time now. I actually saw some of the detailed eccentricities in Luke's acting as I have seen in Washington's past performances. It was like if Washington was telling Luke- ` la la la Luke I am your acting father'. Ok! I will lay off the Star Wars jokes before my readers send me to a galaxy far far away. Speaking of the great Denzel, his work as the psychologist was masterful. But what can you expect from the acting `Master D' himself. `Antwone Fisher' was written by no other than Antwone Fisher himself. The emotional pathos he inserted in his storylife's screenplay was of `fisher king' material. I hail to the chief `Mr. Washington' in catching the right bait in `Antwone Fisher'. ***** Excellent

Negative

He glorified himself as a terrible supporting actor in `Glory', he proved he was just a `Malcolm in the Middle' mediocre actor in `Malcolm X', he didn't show any brotherly love for acting in `Philadelphia', he missed a slam dunk in `He Got Game', he pulled a lot of punches and rocked no one like a hurricane in `The Hurricane', he provided us ineffective thespian education in `Training Day', and now he has demonstrated that he can't direct! Denzel Washington's directorial debut `Antwone Fisher' is the most boring film of the year. This tearjerker `fish'er story is in no relation to the debacle that happened to the Miami Dolphins in the 4th quarter against the New England Patriots in the last game of the 2002 season. Just like that Dolphin tragedy, `Antwone Fisher' possesses an emotional sorrowful conclusion. The movie is based on a true story about a young naval officer who has an anger management problem due to the abhorrent he suffered as a foster child. Denzel plays the naval psychologist who helps Antwone overcome his rage and convinces him to find his natural mother. Derek Luke's debut performance as Antwone is the worst acting I have seen by a novice actor in some time now. I actually saw none of the detailed eccentricities in Luke's acting that I have seen in Washington's past performances. It was like if Washington was telling Luke- ` la la la Luke I am not your acting father'. Ok! I will lay off the Star Wars jokes before my readers send me to a galaxy far far away. Speaking of the great Denzel, his work as the psychologist was terrible. But you expect more from the acting `Master D' himself. `Antwone Fisher' was written by no other than Antwone Fisher himself. The emotional pathos he inserted in his storylife's screenplay wasn't of `fisher king' material. I don't hail to the chief `Mr. Washington' in catching the right bait in `Antwone Fisher'. ***** Horrible.