Datasets:

claran

/

imdb_sample

like 0

At the name of Pinter, every knee shall bow - especially after his Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech which did little more than regurgitate canned, by-the-numbers, sixth-form anti-Americanism. But this is even worse; not only is it a tour-de-force of talentlessness, a superb example of how to get away with coasting on your decades-old reputation, but it also represents the butchery of a superb piece. The original Sleuth was a masterpiece of its kind. Yes, it was a theatrical confection, and it is easy to see how it's central plot device would work better on the stage than the screen, but it still worked terrifically well. This is a Michael Caine vanity piece, but let's face it, Caine is no Olivier. Not only can he not fill Larry's shoes, he couldn't even fill his bathroom slippers. The appropriately-named Caine is, after all, a distinctly average actor, whose only real recommendation, like so many British actors, is their longevity in the business. He was a good Harry Palmer, excellent in Get Carter, but that's yer lot, mate! Give this a very wide berth and stick to the superb original. This is more of a half-pinter.

0neg

Well, what to say...<br /><br />Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...<br /><br />VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"<br /><br />Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...

0neg

This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!<br /><br />The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.<br /><br />In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.<br /><br />I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".<br /><br />I rated this movie 1/10.

0neg

I only rented this movie because of promises of William Dafoe, and Robert Rodriguez. I assumed that upon seeing RR's name on the cover (as an actor) that this movie would be good. It sounds like a movie that Rodriguez would of made so if He's going to lend his name to it, than it has to be good right? WRONG WRONG WRONG. By far the worst editing since "Manos Hands of fate". The way it was edited made no sense and made the movie impossible to follow and after the first 30 minutes you wont even want to try to follow it anymore. I have no idea how Dafoe and Rodriguez got involved in this film, maybe they owed somebody, but they are way to good for this. Besides they were only in this movie for a couple minutes apiece and Rodriguez didn't even talk. So if you wanna see a movie with Poor editing, poor acting, and confusing storyline than be my guest but don't say you weren't warned.

0neg

Ridiculous-looking little boogers that spawn foam and reproduce themselves. So far for the horror-elements this movie has. All the rest of MUNCHIES plays out like a really retarded comedy that's so stupid you won't find it funny anymore after about 15 minutes. I can imagine little kids cheering for these little boogers, but adults will be left with only those supposedly "smart" references translating to on-screen stuff like Capt. Kirk's log entries from STAR TREK, the most well-known scene from E.T., a blatant statement from the filmmakers going "Look! We're cashing in on GREMLINS' success here!" and a cardboard cut-out of Clint Eastwood telling us... what about his western movies exactly? That last one was totally lost on me... Oh yes, and chemical waste disposal in caves seems to be a bad thing. Don't know where they got that idea from.<br /><br />Not to say that MUNCHIES is the most insufferable film to sit through, for that matter. It's just really, really dumb. And if you manage to crack a smile while watching it, you'll probably feel as dumb yourself for having done that after the film's finished.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes, but only if "dumb", "retarded" & "ridiculous" are criteria you're looking for. 3/10 and, well, uhm, 6/10.

0neg

I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving "funny" moments in the beginning.<br /><br />But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.<br /><br />{SPOILER}<br /><br />Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!!

0neg

Red Rock West is a perfect example of how good a film can be with practically no budget. All you need is a smart script, good actors and loads of atmosphere. RRW delivers all these and more.<br /><br />Nic Cage plays an ex-marine, injured in Lebanon, who is down to his last 5 dollars after being refused a job on an oilfield because of his bad knee. He roles into Red Rock and is mistaken by bartender Wayne (JT Walsh, not quite as his most menacing-but still evil) for a hit-man from Texas.<br /><br />He pays him to kill his wife and make it look like burglary. Only when he gets there, just to check her out. She offers him double to kill Wayne. Cage just wants to get the hell out of town with his free money and leave the sparring lovers be. But a series of mishaps and setbacks results in him yo-yoing in and out of Red Rock, back and forth. Eventually this leads to a run-in with Lyle from Dallas (a cheeky and somehow sympathetic Dennis Hopper), the REAL hit-man from Texas who offers to help without knowing he's making the plot more complicated.<br /><br />RRW never had a big release, thus most of it's audience discovered it on video or on cable TV showings. Viewing it in such a way might make it seem like a TV movie but it's bigger than that. The slick, slowly-timed direction, moody score and howling desert wind would have all made for a great movie in theatres but the best you can do these days is watch the DVD on a big HDTV.<br /><br />The only weak point of the movie I can think of is Lara Flynn Boyle's boring femme fatale with the nasty dyke-ish hairdo. I certainly wouldn't fall for her but if you assume that Nic Cage's character is in to militant lesbians then you'll accept it nonetheless.

1pos

This is almost like two films--one literate and engaging, the other stupid and clichéd. It's really a shame all the problems weren't worked out with the writing, but considering how quickly most B-movies were written and produced, this isn't too unusual. It's a real shame, though, as this could have been a very good film.<br /><br />First the good. The movie is original and involves WWII code-breakers. This is pretty fascinating and I liked watching the leading man (Lee Bowman) go through his paces as a master code-breaker. In fact, the first two-thirds of the film was very good. But now for the bad, the film just went on way too long and lost steam at about 50 minutes. Additionally, Jean Rogers' role as the "kooky girlfriend" must rank as one of the worst-written and distracting roles in film history!! For every smart move made by Bowman, the idiot Rogers then stepped in to screw things up as some sort of misguided "comedy relief". If her role had been intelligently written, the overall film would have improved immensely! Instead, watching her, it's hard to understand how we actually won WWII!!

0neg

Expecting to see a "cute little film" from mainland China, I was ill-prepared. Family dynamics, community and the inevitability of change have rarely been explored so expertly on film. Every character is solid and I was completely drawn into the story. The organization is much more complex than American audiences will be accustomed to. Yet, there is no difficulty following the progression, even while reading subtitles. Jiang Wu, as the retarded brother, is a constant shining light. Leave your cynicism in your locker. It will be there when you check out.

1pos

Unless I'm sadly mistaken, I rented A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 several years ago and there was a music video, I'm pretty sure which was called Dream Warriors, at the end of it, and I rented this one on DVD hoping that the video would be there because it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's amazing how stuff from the 80s is so funny now, but nothing is funnier than 80s rap videos. There was this rap group singing that song Dream Warriors on the VHS version of this movie after the credits, and they're all wearing like denim jackets with no shirt underneath and form fitting jean shorts that are all frayed at the bottoms like Daisy Dukes. What could make a rap group look more foolish I can't imagine.<br /><br />(spoilers) At any rate, I was disappointed in looking for that video on the DVD version, so all I had was this mediocre installment in the Freddy Krueger series. The movie sort of starts off with the same idea as part 2, with the main character witnessing all kinds of gruesome murders and then sort of coming out of a trance and finding himself with the bloody hands. Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has a nightmare about the infamous house that Nancy Thompson used to live in, then runs to the bathroom, the sink's handles turn into Freddy's hands and attack her, and then she wakes up standing in her bathroom having slit her own wrists. From there, the movie turns into the usual mental hospital installment. <br /><br />`Larry' Fishburne, tired of always playing the bad guy in his roles, was happy to take on the role in this film as a nice-guy orderly, stern but accommodating when the patients want to bend the rules a little. Not surprisingly, he turns in what is by leaps and bounds the best performance in the movie. Arquette later goes on to become an accomplished actor, but had not perfected her acting skills when she starred in this film. The characters in the movie are mostly all patients at the mental hospital that Kristen is placed into after cutting her wrists. All of them are cynical and uncooperative, almost none believing that they really belong there at all. Eventually, they realize and are able to convince the staff that they are all having dreams about the same man and it's not just some kind of group hysteria.<br /><br />Heather Langenkamp has returned in her famous role as Nancy Thompson, this time grown up into a dream researcher as a result of her childhood experiences involving Freddy Krueger. Not surprisingly, she is able to quickly relate to the hysterical Kristen and the rest of the patients, since she had experienced exactly what they're going through. There are some interesting murders in this installment, and the technology used for the special effects have taken a huge jump. There is a gigantic, worm-like Freddy that tries to swallow Kristen whole, there is a scene where a television turns into Freddy and with mechanical arms he picks up one of the patients there for some late night entertainment and punishes her for sitting too close to the TV, but there is also an unconvincing go-motion scene where a couple guys have a fight with Freddy Krueger's skeleton, which has been rotting in the trunk of some car in a car junkyard. And one of the more groan-inducing scenes was one where Freddy attacks one of the patients in his dream (the one famous for sleepwalking), tearing the muscles and tendons out of his arms and legs and leading him around like a puppet. Ouch.<br /><br />We get a peek into Freddy's past in this installment. Not only do we meet his mother, but we also find out the circumstances that led to Freddy being fathered by more than 100 maniacs. In fighting Freddy, the patients all band together and, in their dreams, use their special powers (most of which reflect their shortcomings in real life) to fight him. One student, bound to a wheelchair, is able to walk in his dreams, another has the hilarious powers of what he calls the `Wizard Master,' another is `beautiful and bad' (she has lots of makeup, her hair stands up in a foot-high Mohawk, and she has knives). Clever, but the movie falters when it has only one of the patients, the one who can't speak, not have any powers in his dreams until the climax of the movie, when he suddenly realizes that he can talk in his dreams (at just the right moment to save the day). His dream power was a little too obvious to have been left out for that long, but collectively, now you see why the movie was subtitled Dream Warriors.<br /><br />Altogether, this is not an entirely weak entry into the series. The acting is pretty shoddy, but it's actually pretty good for a horror movie. Larry Fishburne vastly overshadows the rest of the cast, displaying wonderful acting skills early on in his career, and the movie is not simply a rehash of either of the first two – a problem that plagues the Friday the 13th movies much more than the Elm Street films. The characters are never developed enough to allow for the later creation of much tension, which is why most of the deaths come across more as creative ways to kill off someone in a horror film than the tragic loss of the life of one of the characters that we've come to know and root for their triumph over evil. But then again, not a lot of horror movies take the time to really develop their characters to the point where you throw up your hands in defeat when they are killed, or are on the edge of your seat as they run for their lives. But it's important to note that the few horror films that actually do that are almost invariably the best ones…

0neg

Michael Caine has always claimed that Ashanti was "the only film (he) did purely for the money" as well as "the worst film he ever starred in". Hold on, Michael, weren't you in The Swarm and Hurry Sundown? And weren't both of those films a good deal worse than Ashanti? Perhaps Caine remembers only too begrudgingly the physically punishing demands of filming an action film in searing 130 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures (the director, Richard Fleischer, was hospitalised as a result of sun-stroke during the shoot). What Ashanti actually emerges as is not the career low-point of Michael Caine. Instead, it is a very average chase thriller with a talented cast, exotic locations, boring stretches and a highly formulaic storyline.<br /><br />Dr. David Linderby (Caine) is a W.H.O medic who is left devastated when his black wife Anansa (Beverly Johnson) goes missing during an aid trip to an African tribal village. Linderby gradually realises that his wife has been snatched by slave traders - led by Suleiman (Peter Ustinov) - and he sets off on a continent-wide pursuit which eventually leads to the Middle East.<br /><br />Along the way, big stars pop in for ineffective and superfluous guest roles. William Holden has a poor cameo as a chopper pilot; Omar Sharif displays little of his customary charm or grace as a pampered Arab millionaire; Rex Harrison looks rightfully bored during his brief role as a helpful contact who assists Caine in his quest. The film is based on a best-seller entitled Ebano, by the little-known author Alberto Vasquez-Figueroa, but the suspense that made the book so popular is largely absent in this adaptation. Ustinov is charismatic as the slaver (he seems in all his movies to be incapable of giving bad performances), and Caine generates believable anguish as the man who thinks he'll never see his wife again. There are occasional flashes of action, but on the whole Ashanti is quite slow-moving. All in all, it is a resistible piece of action hokum - not by any stretch as awful as Caine has frequently suggested, but not a very inspiring film and certainly a let-down from all the talent involved.

0neg

I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picture<br /><br />was important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O´Briain.<br /><br />

1pos

Although The Notorious Bettie Page is well acted and shot, is is, at best, a Cliffs Notes version of Bettie's biography. The film mainly centers on her work with Irving and Paula Klaw, the brother and sister team who produced the bulk of her most famous photos. It does not detail her life after posing, aside from her religious rebirth. It cites "The Real Bettie Page", by Richard Foster as a source, but it ignores Bettie's later years of mental illness and incarceration in a mental hospital. The narrow focus of the biography can be debated, but the majority of Bettie's fans and the "civilians" would probably be more interested in her modeling career, which is what they get.<br /><br />The film is well acted, with Gretchen Mol faithfully reproducing the look of Bettie, as well as conveying the sweetness that her photos exuded. The character is played as rather naive, a probable byproduct of interviews given by Bettie in recent years. It is more likely that Bettie was aware of the nature of her photos but rationalized it as acting and costumes.<br /><br />The supporting cast is also outstanding, with Chris Bauer and Lili Taylor playing Irving and Paula Klaw, and David Strathairn as Estes Kefauver. The film errs with the character of John Willie, played by Jared Harris. John Willie never met Bettie Page and was not involved in photo shoots with the Klaws. Harris plays Willie a bit like Peter O'Toole, in his more debauched state.<br /><br />Despite the quality of acting, the film is a bit of a disappointment in terms of depth. The story is rather cursory and we never feel that we truly get to know Bettie. Much like her photos, it's just an image. It does tend to exaggerate Bettie's notoriety. Her photos were mainly seen in and around New York, in a very narrow market of underground and cultish publications. Her real fame came after her photos were reprinted in the late 70's and 80's, and the Cult of Betty Page (as her name was usually spelled) grew. Bettie's greatest exposure (pardon the pun) was in Playboy, appearing in the January 1955 issue (the Christmas photo, which is staged in reverse in the film).<br /><br />The film is well done, if rather shallow. It is able to sustain interest until the end and showcases many fine performances. It hits the high points of Bettie's life, but ignores many details which would have given it far greater depth. The ending is rather a let down. It feels rather abrupt. Still, the movie is definitely worth viewing by anyone interested in Bettie, or even the time period. The soundtrack is great, really pulling the viewer into the 1950's. If nothing else, the film stands as a showcase for America's burgeoning sexuality and the clash with its Puritan past. It's also a peek at an icon for both men and women.

1pos

The first time I saw this film, I was in shock for days afterwards. Its painstaking and absorbing treatment of the subject holds the attention, helped by good acting and some really intriguing music. The ending, quite simply, had me gasping. First rate!

1pos

This is the best piece of film ever created Its a master piece that brought a tear to my eye. Ill never forget my experience watching it. I don't understand why people don't think as I do The dinosaur turns in a performance reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull, Pacino in Scarface, and Crowe in Gladiator combined. This should be released on DVD in Superbit format so I can fully enjoy it like it was meant to be enjoyed when they produced and filmed it. Whoppi Goldberg truly turns in the performance of a lifetime as a tough, gritty cop who is against her will teamed with a hot shot dinosaur as her partner then the hi-jinx ensues to say the least. By the way I'm saying the complete opposite of what is true this movie is utter garbage.

1pos

The wonderful "Z" Channel in Los Angeles showed this Pia Zadora film about six months or so after "Butterfly". I had such high hopes for the actress, and then she goes from bad to obviously WORSE in this film.<br /><br />Again, it was the 80's and I gotta tell you Harold Robbin's work had been eclipsed by smarter writers. Jacqueline Susann ripped into him (she hated his way of writing women), Irwin Shaw's work caught on with many women, and of course Sidney Sheldon had his kingdom in the late 70's early 80's and then came Jackie Collins who made women stronger and as equal to men in every way in her books, even more so. Which is why this work smelt. Harold Robbin's work in the 80's just didn't catch on with audiences. Pia Zadora acting in one of Robbin's work was like throwing kerosine on a fire. The supporting cast was not a help either.<br /><br />Oooooh... this was awful to look at then and even 20 more years later, it looks even worse. I had a hope for Pia as an actress and it all got shot to heck when this was done. It would be tough for Pia to redeem herself as an actress (although John Waters casting her in "Hairspray" was a spark) although she has a nice singing voice.<br /><br />Hey, Pia, wherever you are...Hairspray may go on tour! Join the show. You may be the biggest comeback story yet.<br /><br />I just hope they burn this film for ya if you do.

0neg

This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.<br /><br />I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.<br /><br />It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.<br /><br />The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.<br /><br />2.6/10 on the "B" scale. <br /><br />That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

0neg

Not since Caligula have I considered turning off the movie half-way through....but then with this one, I was only 15 minutes in when I considered. Unfortunately, I did make it all the way through. Make sure that you do not.<br /><br />It's not that Cradle of Fear is shocking or gory or scary or frightening or sexual. It's that it's not any of those things, yet it so desperately wants to be all of them. Instead, it's boring, trite, ordinary, predictable, and unexceptionally poorly executed (shot on video, high school special effects, no sense of even basic visual storytelling, dialog barely audible...not that it's worth hearing, though).<br /><br />This movie is proof for the argument that even the straight-to-video distributors need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

0neg

The key to the joy and beauty, the pain and sadness of life is our ability to accept that life basically is what it is so we don't constantly struggle against that single compelling truth. In so doing, we find peace. Elegant in its simplicity but so hard for most of us to grasp.<br /><br />In this film, the director shows us this truth but allows us to discover it in our own way. This is a beautiful yet simple story, more of a fable, which is played very well. Watching the actors is more like being in a room with real people than it is just watching actors.<br /><br />I struggled with how to write a review of this fine film so others would be motivated to see it. I'm at a loss. The story is about men in a bath house. Sounds like a real turn off, right? But, nothing could be farther from the truth. The American title for this film is The Shower but that is almost an antithesis to a major thematic element in this film, which is the bath. I'm still at a loss. Talking about the story or the characters will not do them justice.<br /><br />So, I'll just tell you how much I enjoyed watching this movie and how touching and moving the experience was. I was also quite entertained. I cared deeply for the characters and I cared deeply about what happened to them. For any story, that is the highest form of praise.<br /><br />If you were moved by movies like The King Of Masks or Not One Less, then make sure you see The Shower. Netflix has it and the DVD video and sound quality are excellent. I watched it in the original lanquage with well done and well placed English subs.<br /><br />

1pos

Having not seen this film in about 20 years I am still impressed with it 's hard -hitting impact and stellar acting. Of course, one Mr. Mickey Rooney is indeed, INCREDIBLE in his role as the ring-leading "Killer".(In reference to another review here-none other than Orson Welles evoked Mickey Rooney's name as the greatest movie actor,also.) I also recall the jazzy-brassy score and the bare black and white photography. I love the Mick's last line before he goes out for his dose of lead poisoning.(I think the Stranglers lifted it for a line in one of their songs-Get a Grip on Yourself.)This is a great film and unjustly buried film. Let's get it out ! Side note-a recent Film Review magazine gave a big write up on Don Segal's "Babyface Nelson" ,made a couple years before "Last Mile" and also starring Mickey Rooney. Another rave of the Mick's intense and sympathetic performance.Perhaps it's the start of a groundswell of a appreciation for some truly superior cinematic performances.

1pos

Terrible!!! I don't want to be too negative but this film has an IQ of stupid monkey.What a disaster.I just couldn't believe how bad this movie is.The dialogs are just very strange and off topic,the camera work at times just horrible,the music at times like a soundtrack for Lawrence of Arabia,I just watched this film to see how much worse it can get.Some of the side kick "actors" are total disaster.Sorry but all my thumbs and toes and anything that can hang downwards on my body is falling to the ground. Harvey Keitle is a great actor but who knows maybe he is in financial crunch to take a part in such a fiasco film. . . . . this movie should have been presented to all the students in all the film schools just to teach them a lesson of how not to make a film

0neg

I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.<br /><br />This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.<br /><br />Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.<br /><br />To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects.

0neg

I've read some of the comments about this film and can only surmise that some people are easily entertained. This movie is nothing. It's so badly written, directed and acted that it barely makes an impression. The characters speak in cliche-ridden dialogue and the situations are completely implausible. While that might make this campy and fun, it doesn't because everything is so lifeless the film becomes dull. It's as if Lee Rose decided to write a drama about a woman struggling with her sexuality but then she either wasn't allowed by studio execs to give the story some true-to-life gusto or didn't have the cojones. This movie could go in the enyclopedia as the standard-issue bad Lifetime TV movie.

0neg

All right I recently got a chance to rent this and watch Santa Claus conquers the martains. Although the children were much more sadistic in SCCTM, I would have to say that Santa Claus was a much worse movie. As a spanish assignment in Spanish 5 we all had to watch it. I'll tell you, usually when we watch a movie we are all just talking and eating food, but not for this movie. Everyone just kept there jaw open wondering what the evil Mr. Pitch was going to do next. Would Merlin help Santa Claus!?! or would his robot reindeer come and save the day? I would suggest renting it because it is the biggest piece of rubbish I have ever seen and I love it for that. :D

0neg

Amy Poehler and Rachel Dratch are among the funnier women to have been on "Saturday Night Live". It's unfortunate that they, along with Tina Fey and Maya Rudolph, were on SNL during the longest stretch of unfunny writing and sketch-making (circa 2002-2006) the show has ever had. Still, these two women most especially know what's funny, and they know how to write a funny movie.<br /><br />You'll notice in the credits of this movie that Dratch and director Ryan Shiraki wrote the story for "Spring Breakdown", but who wrote the actual screenplay, consisting of dialogue and all the important fill-in-the-blank material that makes a story into a multidimensional movie? Yep, just Shiraki. Just one guy wrote the dialogue for this movie, and no women apparently wrote the script with him. The result is a pretty cliché spring break movie that doesn't so much spoof the faux holiday as much as exploit it equally as much as MTV does every year.<br /><br />If Dratch, Poehler, and even co-star Parker Posey could have contributed their handwriting to the screenplay, it would have been far less cliché. The premise is original, being about three thirty-something women who were unpopular in high school (and apparently college, too) who never had the fun spring break trip they allegedly dreamed about. I say "allegedly" because you never quite know what fun is to these characters. They entered talent shows in the past where they sing stale pro-woman anthems like "True Colors", and spend their nights together holding make-your-own-pizza parties. Even though none of them are especially unattractive, the outside world appears to treat them like they are. There's a scene where a blind student of Poehler's (played by Poehler's real life husband Will Arnett) asks her out on a date, only to touch her face and immediately change his mind. If Poehler's character is supposed to be unattractive, they obviously hired the wrong actress.<br /><br />The movie continues to show promise, even though we have our doubts about the main characters, when Posey's boss, Texas Senator 'Kay Bee' Hartmann (Jane Lynch, funny as always) hires Posey to watch over her unpopular college-age daughter (Amber Tamblyn, playing yet another woman who's attractive in real life, but not in the eyes of any characters in this movie) while she goes to a Laguna Beach-like vacation spot for Spring Break. Poehler and Dratch come along, they reluctantly get boozed up, party like they apparently should have when they were in college, and then comes the ultimate showdown with the sorority bitches lead by Sophie Monk.<br /><br />Sophie Monk is an incredibly attractive woman who has a body both women and men would kill to have for different reasons. Unfortunately, her movie career is off to a rough start with the abominably unfunny "Date Movie" (2006) and the disappointing "Click" (2006). Here, she plays a Southern belle, although her voice sounds like she stole Delta Burke's voice box. She hams it up a little too much, trying too hard to play a conniving bitch that she comes off as much like a caricature of spoiled college kids as the rest of the extras.<br /><br />"Spring Breakdown" was released straight to DVD despite the star power of Amy Poehler, but rightly so because the story is way too cliché. It may as well have been called "National Lampoon's Spring Breakdown", and the magazine probably wouldn't have sued for trademark infringement because of the free publicity. If director Shiraki had given at least one woman the creative input, especially Rachel Dratch, this movie would have been great and not nearly as run-of-the-mill as frat-house comedies we've seen before. I know Dratch will come up with another funny concept, and hopefully be allowed to fill in the rest of the screenplay herself. She's funny enough, and she deserves better than this half-baked comedy that would accept Stiffler's brother with open arms.

0neg

I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.<br /><br />At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.<br /><br />One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award.

0neg

This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.<br /><br />This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.<br /><br />The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.<br /><br />But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie.

0neg

This movie has everything you want from an action movie. Explosions,shootouts,bad guys and worse guys. It is fun to see James Belushi using his humor to get out of the trouble he has gotten himself in to since he stole 12 million dollars from the ultimate big boss "The Skipper. Does this sounds cheesy. Of course it is. But boy,did I have fun watching this movie. It is a whole lot better than all the direct to DVD garbage that is made nowadays. If you can get over the silly plot than you will find out that this movie has quite a few surprises in store. You could argue about the twists being predictable. But the fast pace of this movie doesn't give you time too think too much of them,which is a blessing since this movie is not about revealing the ultimate twist. But more about the journey to that moment. Only the title is a bit misleading and that could be the reason why so many people hated this movie. They probably expected a movie about mobsters in stead of some crooks double crossing each other. Pure fun!

1pos

Like "My Sassy Girl", this movie is based on a true story posted from the internet, but that's where the similarities end. The story is generally about this rebellious guy named Ji-Hoon (Kwon Sang Woo) who is still trying to finish high school, whose parents hire a tutor named Su-Wan (Kim Ha Neul), a woman who comes from a poor background, but happens to be the same age as him. Add to that some obstacles, martial arts (thugs are always after Ji-Hoon for revenge), a scorned, thuggish love-sick girl who is after him, his proclivity for ditching the lessons, and you generally can guess the whole story. Did I mention it's a romantic comedy? This movie has some good fight scenes, great visual humor and a lot of spunk, thanks to the good chemistry between Kim Ha Nuel and Kwon Sang Woo, that bring a lot of energy to the story. The romantic elements also work because of that reason. And, I must say, I'd want a girlfriend more like Kim Ha Nuel than that girl from "My Sassy Girl" (personality-wise, at least). She has some spunk, but it's more on the cute, sweet, good-hearted way. Characters are already mostly likable (so one might say it had less of a hill to climb than "My Sassy Girl"--an obstacle that worked for that movie to its credit), and the movie is quite clever and interesting most of the way. The story kind of sags, though, about 2/3 of the way (where it sort of treads on familiar, standard fare, where nothing really interesting happens), but near the end, it picks up a bit again. Overall, a fun, cute movie. 8/10

1pos

I'm from Belgium and therefore my English writing is rather poor, sorry for that...<br /><br />This is one of those little known movies that plays only once on TV and than seems to vanishes into thin air. I was browsing through my old VHS Video collection and came across this title, I looked it up and it had an IMDb score of more than 7/10, that's pretty decent.<br /><br />I must admit that it's a very well put together movie and that's why I'm puzzled. This is the only film made by this director...? How come he didn't make lots of films after this rather good one...? Someone with so much potential should be forced to make another movie, ha ha ;-) <br /><br />Anyway, I really would like to see that he pulls his act together and makes another good movie like this one, please.....?

1pos

Allison Dean's performance is what stands out in my mind watching this film. She balances out the melancholy tone of the film with an iridescent energy. I would like to see more of her.

1pos

This movie is probably for you. It had an overall meditative quality from the music, to the beautiful photography, and listening to the often cliché things about life that Andy Goldsworthy would say as he worked or in between shots. If you're familiar with Buddhism- that is the sort of the sense I got out of this film. The impermanence of life, the beauty of nature, the interconnectedness of all things, etc. However, what I did not understand, confused, and ultimately forced me to leave without finishing (I saw over an hour of it) was the redundancy of the whole thing. You only find out bits and pieces of why he's commissioned, and how he can even afford to live off of this kind of work. The art work comes alive but all his talking with no conclusions leads to dead ends.

1pos

I'd been following this films progress for quite some time so perhaps expected a little too much. I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.<br /><br />The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.<br /><br />The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years. Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong! There are also a few key elements missing, in this type of movie there's generally some kind of warning. A don't do this or this might happen element which adds to the tension but there's nothing of the sort here. It just simply happens, then nothing happens for an hour, then something interesting happens and then it ends.<br /><br />There's a lot of really stiff competition in this genre and hats of to Dan Reed for trying, I have no issue with his directing abilities but in term of writing... I'd say next time he should stick to the formula for the type of film he's making instead of trying to be too clever and he'll have a quality movie on his hands.

0neg

This is a CGI animated film based upon a French 2D animated series. The series ran briefly on Cartoon Network, but its run was so brief that its inclusion as one of the potential Oscar nominees for best animated film for this year left most people I know going "Huh?" This is the story of Lian-Chu, the kind heart muscle, and Gwizdo, the brains of the operation, who along with Hector their fire farting dragon,he's more like a dog. Travel the world offering up their services as dragon hunters but never getting paid. Into their lives comes Zoe, the fairy tale loving niece of a king who is going blind. It seems the world is being devoured by a huge monster and all of the knights the king has sent out have never returned or if the do return they come back as ashes. In desperation the king hires the dragon hunters to stop the world eater. Zoe of course tags along...<br /><br />What can I say other then why is this film hiding under a rock? This is a really good little film that is completely off the radar except as unlikely Oscar contender. Its a beautifully designed, fantastic looking film (The world it takes place has floating lands and crazy creatures) that constantly had me going "Wow" at it. The English Voice cast with Forrest Whitaker as Lian-Chu (one of the best vocal performances I've ever heard) and Rob Paulson as Gwizdo (think Steve Bucsemi) is first rate. Equally great is the script which doesn't talk down to its audience, using some real expressions not normally heard in animated films (not Disney nor Pixar). Its all really well done.<br /><br />Is it perfect? No, some of the bits go on too long, but at the same time its is damn entertaining.<br /><br />If you get the chance see this. Its one of the better animated films from 2008, and is going on my nice surprise list for 2009.

1pos

A delight mini movie, a musical short based on three of Cole Porter's Broadway smash songs. Bob Hope's first credited film is a delight! He plays an American playboy millionaire on vacation in Paris. The film opens with him sitting at a table of an out door café telling his friends about this beauty that takes his breath away. Suddenly he spots her a few yards away. he is so over come his friends tease him and suggest "just show her your bank book." But Hope claims he can win her in less than 30 days with "no" money! They bet polo ponies over the issue and take all his cash and ID's. Hope follows her and when they are alone gushes out a proposal she does not believe he is sincere until he sings to her, "You Do Something to Me" by Cole Porter. But she must leave and he tries to earn money as a tour guide so he can pursue her. But when she sees him showing another girl around town, disillusioned she wants to drop him. He continues to chase her and catches up to her and her family at a race track where he bets his meager earnings on the last race hoping to win enough to impress her. Through a series of events and large synchronized dance numbers he loses the winning ticket and she decides to marry him rich or poor. So he wins the girl, the race and the bet and sings two more songs!

1pos

After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10

0neg

This, and Immoral Tales, both left a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to me that Borowczyk is disgusted by sex, and these two films are cautionary tales about what will happen if you do have sex. As a film, it's not very well done -- some of the acting is truly epically bad (such as the "American" woman with the French accent). The young woman's sudden flip-flop from being anxious about the marriage to being interested (when it seems like it should have been the other way around), and the aunt's sudden realization of the young man's secret don't make sense -- they're not explained at all. I also didn't like how the daughter's relationship with a black man was presented as a sign of her family's perversion or predilection for bestiality. The central idea, the idea that there's this "sexy beast," if you will, that lives in the woods, could have been a foundation for a perverse but fun story, but instead is just used as a basis for a nasty, sex-negative, morality play.

0neg

"Wisecracker," the biography of actor William Haines, offers a gratifying anecdote about the former star when he was past 70 and long retired from making movies. The old gent was not sentimental and rarely watched his own films, but in 1972 he was persuaded to attend a Los Angeles museum screening of SHOW PEOPLE, the late silent feature in which he co-starred with Marion Davies. Beforehand, Haines was worried that this comedy would provoke the wrong kind of laughter, but he was pleasantly surprised (and no doubt relieved) at how well it held up and how much the young audience enjoyed it. Watch the film today and you can see why: SHOW PEOPLE is a delightful Hollywood satire that retains its charm because it lampoons its targets with wit and flair, yet without malice. It's still funny and its satirical points still resonate. Needless to say, the technology of movie-making has changed vastly since the silent days, but the pretensions and follies of the filmmakers themselves haven't changed all that much.<br /><br />SHOW PEOPLE also stands as the best surviving work of Marion Davies, a first-rate comic performer who deserves a prominent place in the pantheon of great comediennes. Where her career was concerned Davies was both blessed and cursed by the patronage of her paramour, the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. It's well known that Hearst exerted enormous influence over Davies' choice of roles, and well known too that, despite her gift for comedy, he preferred to see her play dignified heroines in period costume dramas. By the late '20s, for whatever reason, Marion was permitted to strut her stuff in several exuberant light comedies (including THE RED MILL and THE PATSY), but SHOW PEOPLE, directed by the great King Vidor, stands as her most enjoyable showcase. William Haines gives an engaging, likable performance as her boyfriend and co-star Billy Boone, but this is the leading lady's show all the way.<br /><br />Marion plays Southern belle Peggy Pepper, an aspiring actress who storms Hollywood accompanied by her father, determined to become a movie star. (Her dad Colonel Pepper is played by actor/director Dell Henderson, a veteran of Griffith's Biograph dramas who—coincidentally?—resembled Hearst!) One of Marion's funniest bits, often excerpted elsewhere, is her audition at the Comet Studio casting office. While Dad helpfully suggests emotions to portray ("Sorrow! . . . Joy!") and drops a handkerchief across her face, Peggy assumes the appropriate expression and posture. She's hired, only to discover that Comet makes low-brow comedies, the kind of comedies where people squirt each other with seltzer and inept cops tumble over each other racing to the rescue. Of course, Comet is intended as a take-off of Mack Sennett's Keystone, but the true nature of the satire becomes clear as the story unfolds. As Peggy Pepper rises in the movie star hierarchy she leaves Comet for the more prestigious High Art Studio, assuming the name "Patricia Peppoire" as more befitting her new station in life as a serious actress. At some point it may occur to us (as it surely did to viewers in 1928) that Davies' rival Gloria Swanson started out in Keystone comedies before rising to prominence in serious dramas for Cecil B. DeMille. And as Miss Peppoire takes herself more and more seriously, giving the high-hat treatment to former colleagues such as lowly comic Billy Boone, Davies' performance takes on an element of wicked parody seemingly aimed squarely at Swanson herself. This is especially notable during an interview sequence, when Miss Peppoire's spokesman spouts pretentious nonsense while the star delivers a spot-on impersonation of Swanson. I suppose this was intended as a friendly spoof, but I have to wonder how friendly relations were between Gloria and Marion after this movie was released.<br /><br />In any event, SHOW PEOPLE is a delicious treat for buffs, who will relish the parade of star cameos throughout. Charlie Chaplin contributes a nice bit, sans makeup and looking quite distinguished, eagerly seeking Patricia Peppoire's autograph! (And in a show of good sportsmanship Marion Davies herself puts in a self-mocking cameo appearance, evening the score for poking fun at Swanson by poking fun at herself.) This is a silent film that viewers not especially attuned to silents might appreciate, at least those viewers with a taste for movies about the movie business. SHOW PEOPLE surely belongs in the company of such classics as SUNSET BOULEVARD and SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, among Hollywood's most expertly produced, enjoyable exercises in amused self-examination.

1pos

I don't know much about the Rat Pack, and Frank Sinatra always seemed a bit too self-consciously full of himself to me. So when I call this one of my all-time faves, it's nothing to do with a tribute-band mentality. As another reviewer says, Mad Dog Time is about symbolism, not realism. It's kafkaesque (a pity Kyle MacLachlan is probably the weakest of a very strong crowd, when he was so good as Josef K), it's stylish, knowing, sardonic and slick. Jeff Goldblum is navigating his way around a variety of characters, trying not to get shot and acting deftly rather than dorkily, trying to stay abreast of what he knows and others don't, whom he can outshoot and whom he can't. Gabriel Byrne and Richard Dreyfuss (his best performance) have a ball, and the supporting cast look spot-on. The symbolism, the settings (the one outdoor motion shot with Jeff Goldblum walking down the steps seems really weird after so much lounge lizardry), the dialogue (style, not practicality, is the order of the day), it's all about characters interacting, not really gangsterism. Fun to watch, must've been fun to do. What the critics were up to is really a mystery...

1pos

A super, unusual film from Audiard, Read My Lips is a pulpy, lonely- hearts thriller. It's perfect for the handsomely grizzled charisma of Vincent Cassel and features a marvellously contained performance from Emanuelle Devos. Devos is a recurring feature of Audiard in the same way that KArin Viard pops up for Jean-Pierre Jeunet: unconventionally beautiful (she's referred to by everyone as unattractive in this film), versatile and capable of a subordinate profile.<br /><br />This is almost the definition of her role as Carla, a put-upon office dogsbody, taunted by colleagues exploiting her deafness. Yet she finds an ami d'exploitation, if you like in Cassel's ex-con Paul. Each exploits the other's unconventional talents (theft and lip reading) to struggle through their respective situations and form an unconventionally romantic rapprochement. Devos/Audiard manage Carla's deafness and its attendant, warped inner world with discreet, stylish flair.<br /><br />In this film (2001) Audiard is already clearly in control of his handling on tension, action and investing his frame with a truly visceral experience which will become the great hit - A Prophet - of nine years later. 7/10

1pos

This may have been based on historical events, and we know that the makers of this TV docu-drama took liberties to make it more dramatic - I can live with that - but it was just so badly done! I was amazed in the event of an unfolding mid-air crisis how calm everyone seemed, surely someone would have panicked, and what a smooth flight, no passenger discomfort apparent - come on! Not sure about the regulations, nowadays some of the airline security stuff seems OTT nonsense, but why take your shoes off before the emergency landing, common sense tells me this is not a good idea! The shots of this massive airliner coming down on this remote airstrip were unconvincing and fake. In reality it would have been an awesome sight viewed from the ground nearby, in this movie it was out of proportion and looked like the model it probably was. Escape slides appeared at the front and mid emergency doors, yet nobody appeared to exit from the front, even though the drop was much less. The Captain went back into the plane after the landing - why? this was never explained. We know the emergency landing was due to being out of fuel, but even so there must have been some fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks, and the risk of explosion must have been a very real danger, yet the evacuation seemed almost leisurely, and everyone stands around at the foot of the escape slides instead of getting as far away as possible, as I am sure I would have done. There were just too many inconsistencies, errors and faked action in this. I would have preferred to have seen a representation of the drama in real time, and with realistic motion of the plane portrayed. It had the potential to be quite thrilling, but doubtless due to the budget restrictions failed, and made one feel that a plane losing all engines was no big deal really, and you would safely glide down to a bit of a bumpy landing, but no real danger! - the reality of course being somewhat different!

0neg

(Sorry for my faulty language, i am no native speaker ...)<br /><br />Yes, this is a movie that almost demands an overwhelming reaction. Personally i agree upon all those superlatives that are around. But i won't use this rather sematically void way myself to describe the movie here. Because those "perfect! the one-and-only! best-ever!"-reviews make some people turn away (including me).<br /><br />So if you are looking for another 'Hamlet' that has the potential to rival with many theatrical and all cinematic ones - Then don't miss this one, if you happen to find it anywhere. (Unfortunately not too many people will have any chance to see it. It seems there is no DVD out there, and the German language version - which is quite well done - is not available in any format.)<br /><br />Just in case you decide to get a copy: Spare out that cut down two hours (or so) version of this movie. It is no use and no fun, and gives a wrong impression of a movie, that deals in an interesting way with flow and architecture. And its also crippled down to 4:3 aspect ratio.<br /><br />Greetings from Germany, F.L.

1pos

Salvage: 4 out of 10. Groundhog Day meets a Christian Coalition horror film. Okay maybe it's not that bad. But it is close.<br /><br />Claire (played by Alicia Silverstonesque Lauren Currie Lewis) is stalked and possibly killed by a serial killer (Chris Ferry who is quite menacing and brutal). I say possibly because she wakes up and it was all a dream….. Or was it? (Cue music)<br /><br />The basic problem with the film is that these fifteen minutes of plot (Done quite well the first time) is repeated over and over again. And since Claire wakes up every time and every scene is clearly a dream or alternate reality I just stopped caring what happened to Claire and started wondering what lame twist at the end was going to pull this together.<br /><br />I was rooting for a séance (which honestly would have made more sense) but instead got one of those too obvious by half surprise endings (Think the Village or Below) Yup the film collapses faster than Donnie Darko's directors cut. All the great twist endings in horror movies The Sixth Sense, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Happy Birthday to Me worked because the audience wasn't expecting a left field explanation. (Heck even the canoe ending in the original Friday the 13th was worth a jolt)<br /><br />Salvage on the other hand screams twist ending with every scene change. Other nagging faults is the one note piano soundtrack (Though the featured songs were decent) the obvious time padding (Claire doing the dishes, Claire's mother's subplots), the way Claire says "hello is anyone there" every time she thinks there is a serial killer around.<br /><br />Also some of the secondary acting roles (In particular Claire's mother played by Maureen Olander who resembles a Mary Kay zombie) shows the first time actor low budget roots.<br /><br />Both too clever by half and not nearly clever enough Salvage keeps your interest if only to see how they are going to fix this mess. Problem is they really don't.

0neg

A young scientist Harry Harrison is continuing his late father's scientific research into limb regeneration with flying colours, but his interferingly dominate mother and her doctor lover want to sell off the serum. When he finds out, there is an accident involving Harry losing an arm. So, he tries out the serum and what eventuates is a genetically deranged arm that has a mind of its own.<br /><br />Oh we've seen this oh so many times before, but what lifts this very campy and quite rubbery shonky junk is the performance of movie icons Elke Sommer and Oliver Reed. Actually it's not a bad flick by Fangoria films; just there are better ones out there, which are similar in vein. "Servered Ties" simply lacks it own distinctive style. The oddball nature and unpleasant splatter resembled "Re-animator" and even a touch of slapstick stuck out like something from "Evil Dead 2".<br /><br />The comic story is truly whacked out with it's black humour, but it can get melodramatic and a bit in dry in the fun factor. Surprises do crop up, especially the flick's final outcome. Which is well accepted, as I thought it could have copped out with something more accessible. For a low-budget production the FX makeup can look rigid and very goofy, but there's some grotesque moments that will make you smile than actually cringe. Even a brush of sexual tension streamlines the story, thanks to Elke Sommer's sternly juicy performance as the mother. Oliver Reed is quite humorously deadpan in a wicked sense and he pulls it off extremely well. They were both immensely diverting as the couple you loved to hate. Billy Morrisette is delightful in a erratic performance as Harry. Director Damon Santostefano briskly paces the film and orchestrates some stylish scenes of gripping and bamboozling horror.<br /><br />Yeah it's juvenile and basically silly nonsense, but you got to hand it to it for some undemanding entertainment.

0neg

Finally, Timon and Pumbaa in their own film...<br /><br />'The Lion King 1 1/2: Hakuna Matata' is an irreverent new take on a classic tale. Which classic tale, you ask? Why, 'The Lion King' of course!<br /><br />Yep, if there's one thing that Disney is never short of, it's narcissism.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean that this isn't a good film. It's basically the events of 'The Lion King' as told from Timon and Pumbaa's perspective. And it's because of this that you'll have to know the story of 'The Lion King' by heart to see where they're coming from.<br /><br />Anyway, at one level I was watching this and thinking "Oh my god this is so lame..." and on another level I was having a ball. Much of the humour is predictable - I mean, when Pumbaa makes up two beds, a big one for himself and a small one for Timon, within the first nanosecond we all know that Timon is going to take the big one. But that doesn't stop it from being hilarious, which, IMO, is 'Hakuna Matata' in a nutshell. It's not what happens, it's how.<br /><br />And a note of warning: there are also some fart jokes. Seriously, did you expect anything else in a film where Pumbaa takes centre stage? But as fart jokes go, these are especially good, and should satisfy even the most particular connoisseur.<br /><br />The returning voice talent is great. I'm kinda surprised that some of the actors were willing to return, what with most of them only having two or three lines (if they're lucky). Whoopi Goldberg is particularly welcome.<br /><br />The music is also great. From 'Digga Tunnah' at the start to 'That's all I need', an adaption of 'Warthog Rhapsody' (a song that was cut from 'The Lion King' and is frankly much improved in this incarnation), the music leaves me with nothing to complain about whatsoever.<br /><br />In the end, Timon and Pumbaa are awesome characters, and while it may be argued that 'Hakuna Matata' is simply an excuse to see them in various fun and assorted compromising situations then so be it. It's rare to find characters that you just want to spend time with.<br /><br />Am I starting to sound creepy?<br /><br />Either way, 'The Lion King 1 1/2' is great if you've seen 'The Lion King' far too many times. Especially if you are right now thinking "Don't be silly, there's no such thing as seeing 'The Lion King' too many times!"

1pos

After being forced to sit through some real stinkers (Racing Stripes, Shark Boy and Lava Girl) -- I truly enjoyed watching "Fried Worms". For once, I did not guess the ending! It was funny and entertaining and didn't resort to a ton of gross-out humor, despite the title. My boys (6 and 10) both LOVED it too -- oh and my 45 year old "boy" had a smile on his face the whole time. This is a family movie that is not just tolerable for the parents. The relationship with the little brother is so close to real life. "He is not stopping singing just to annoy me!!" Also, the way the new kid tries to make friends and how those friendships actually form is right-on with the way kids behave. Of course the parents have to act a little goofy -- but my favorite scenes involved the Dad getting used to his new job. Have fun!

1pos

This movie is one of the sleepers of all time. I gave it a 10 rating. The story is of the famed 'Bushwhackers' out of Missouri that fought on the side of the South during the War Between the States. The clothing they wore were authentic, the history and why they fought is very accurate and well researched. There was actually one of the battles that did not take place as they depicted... but not bad for Hollywood. The actors were well cast and were either the most brilliant of actors or the director really know how to get the best from them. I suspect it was a combination of great directing, super casting to find the right people and excellent performing by the actors. Not just one or two... this movie really jelled! It has action, romance, suspense, good guys and bad guys (sometimes depending on your individual perspective) and history all rolled into one movie. Even has the future Spiderman and Jewel. And she's good!

1pos

The title is the sound that one of the characters makes as he drives his imaginary trolley across the garbage dump where the characters live. The film is based on a series of stories by Shugoro Yamamoto and tells the story of a group of people who effectively live in ramshackle homes on the edge of the dump. It's a mix of laughter and sadness.<br /><br />First color film made by Akria Kurasowa has been something I've wanted to see for a long time. Weirdly it was often listed as being only available in a shortened version from a three or four hour original due to an error in the run time in some promotional material. I was holding out for the full version, waiting to see what Kurasowa wanted us to see, only to find out on the recent release by Criterion that the 140 minute version is the full version.<br /><br />Finally sitting down to see the film last night I'm of mixed emotions about the film. First and foremost its visually linked to every film that followed. You can see every other of Kurasowals remaining six films reflected in this movie, down to the painted sunsets. Its a striking film in its use of color and you can understand why it took him so long to a film stock he would he happy with (of course there are failed projects as well). The film is a visual work of art.(Though be warned if you're going to see this on your widescreen TV this was shot 1.33 so will appear in normal TV ratio.) The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Part of the problem is that the lives of all of these people don't quite come together. As separate tales they all work well but as a filmic whole they don't hang as one. I don't blame Kurasowa since one can't always hit things out of the box, especially when some one like Robert Altman who specialized in multi-character films of this sort occasionally bombed himself.<br /><br />This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to see the film. As will all Kurasowa films there are always reasons to see his films, whether they work or not. The first trip of the "trolley" is one of the best things Kurasowa ever did and is worth the price of a rental. Its one of the most magical moments in film history as the trolley is inspected and taken out. The father and son living in the car is touching (though ultimately very sad) and there are other bits and pieces that shine (like the cast which is across the board great) and one should at least try the film as something different from a man we usually associated with samurai films or crime dramas.<br /><br />Its an intriguing misfire from a master filmmaker which means in this case means its better than most other filmmakers successes.<br /><br />Between 6 and 7 as a whole, much higher in pieces.

1pos

There is so much that can be said about this film. It is not your typical nunsploitation. Of course, there is nudity and sex with nuns, but that is almost incidental to the story.<br /><br />It is set in 15th Century Italy, at the time of the martyrdom of 800 Christians at Otranto. The battle between the Muslims and the Christians takes up a good part of the film. It was interesting when everyone was running from the Muslim hoards, that the mother superior would ask, "Why do you fear the Muslims,; they will not do anything that the Christians have done to you?" Certainly, there was enough torture on both sides.<br /><br />Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) is sent to a convent for defying her father. In the process, she witnesses and endures many things: the gelding of a stallion, the rape of a local woman by a new Duke, the torture of a nun who was overcome during a visit by the Tarantula Sect, and a whipping herself when she ran off with a Jew. The torture was particularly gruesome with hot wax being poured on the nun, and her nipples cut off.<br /><br />Sister Flavia is bound to continue to get into trouble as she questions the male-dominated society in which she lives. She even asks Jesus, why the father, son and holy ghost are all men.<br /><br />Eventually, she joins the leader of the Muslims as his lover and they sack the convent. Here is where you see more flesh than you can possible enjoy at one time. But, tragedy is to come. She manages to exact sweet revenge on all, including the Duke and her father, but finds that the Muslim lover treats her exactly the same. She is a woman and that is all there is to it.<br /><br />I won't describe what the holy men of the church did to this heretic at the end, but it predates the torture of Saw or Hostel by decades.<br /><br />Nunsploitation fans will be satisfied with the treats, but movie lovers will find plenty of meat to digest.

1pos

This show started out with great mystery episodes. I think everyone is in the first 15 or 16 episodes. After that, the show started playing short episodes with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo.<br /><br />I think Hanna Barbera Productions had to change 20 minutes episodes into short episodes. Some of the voice actors became unavailable. After 15 or 16 episodes, Frank Welker (who played Fred) became unavailable. I think the voice of Velma changes after first 12 episodes, because the first voice actress who played Velma was unavailable.<br /><br />And the network ordered the Hanna Barbera studio to make more shorts with Shaggy, Scooby doo, and Scrappy doo, because the ratings were high. So they had to make more shorts. I wish they were mysteries like 15 episodes. Still it is a good show.

1pos

This would be a watchable Hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. It relies on the typical American thriller plot - "who is going to outsmart everyone". Acting is below average, but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. Film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. All in all, if you don't mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project, this is a film to watch. I guess that would be enough to say on this film, everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low enough.

0neg

The Comeback starts off looking promising, with a brutal death scene by a mask wearing killer. The mask itself is pretty cool too, and looks almost identical to the one used in the 1990's slasher film "Granny". From then on the film is mostly boring. We get a few more deaths, which again are good, but there's not enough of them. The reason the deaths are so good is because they are frenzied and bloody. The story behind the film is actually rather interesting and would have worked very well had it not been so boring for the most part. <br /><br />I would avoid this unless you're a die-hard collector - there's not enough here to even make it an average slasher flick.

0neg

Like the characters in this show, I too was a teen during the 70s. The producers really nailed the whole zeitgeist, of being a suburban teenager in the 70s. The 70s fashions, cars, home furnishings, foods, and fads, are all very authentic in this show.<br /><br />The show boasts a very talented ensemble cast, who all mesh together very well on camera. I really like the unique, psychedelic-style film sequences. No other show does camera tricks like this. These cutting-edge film sequences, really help to convey the campy hipness, that characterized the 70s era.<br /><br />Overall this is a very funny sitcom. The one thing that bothers me about this show, is it's over-reliance on cruel humor, to generate laughs. In this way, I think that this show tries to be too much like Married With Children. While Married with Children is a great sitcom in its own right, it's tacky that the creators of That 70s show, keep trying to imitate it. <br /><br />I do recommend That 70s Show, mainly due to it's nostalgia factor. It could be an even better show though, if the writers relied more on witty dialog, rather than bawdy, tasteless jokes and pranks.

1pos

Lovely piece of good cinema. This is one of those films that you see smiling and you do not know why. Well, one of the reasons could be that we are before one of the most surprising directors today, and he is able to film emotions.<br /><br />When you are watching the film you can feel what Mr. Straight was feeling when he took the decision to go to visit his brother with his "marvellous" John Deere. What changed in his mind?, what changed in YOUR mind when you watched this film?<br /><br />A beautiful fraternal love story.

1pos

I always thought this would be a long and boring Talking-Heads flick full of static interior takes, dude, I was wrong. "Election" is a highly fascinating and thoroughly captivating thriller-drama, taking a deep and realistic view behind the origins of Triads-Rituals. Characters are constantly on the move, and although as a viewer you kinda always remain an outsider, it's still possible to feel the suspense coming from certain decisions and ambitions of the characters. Furthermore Johnnie To succeeds in creating some truly opulent images due to meticulously composed lighting and atmospheric light-shadow contrasts. Although there's hardly any action, the ending is still shocking in it's ruthless depicting of brutality. Cool movie that deserves more attention, and I came to like the minimalistic acoustic guitar score quite a bit.

1pos

Of course the average "Sci-Fi" Battle Star Gallactica fan will hate this. That kind of makes me happy. I don't like those cheesy sci-fi shows especially Battle-star Gallactica and that is why I like this show.<br /><br />The creators of the show got a lot of heat for making this (the unconventional sci-fi way) and it was worth it. I read on Wiki that they wanted to appeal to everybody including women and not just sci-fi nerds.<br /><br />This is probably the most promising show since Lost. It has the most interesting, clever, and deepest script of any show in some time and it is truly unique.<br /><br />What I love most about the show is that it kind of plays out like a great Anime! From young teens running around shooting guns, to and extremely well balanced and complex script, to robots it reminds me of something that came from Japan except a little bit better (most Anime is too confusing).

1pos

"Secret of the Lens" is perhaps a pretty campy all-time favorite of mine. The best and funniest from Kajawari Yoshiaki, who is known for splatter anime and sleazy hentai-ecchi anime. I wish he did more campiness like this.<br /><br />My favorite scenes are the psychedelic CG sequence, the parts where Lord Helumis blows up his failing henchmen, the party riots that Bill causes (one of the funniest scenes) and whenever my favorite character, Worsle appears.<br /><br />Check this out.<br /><br />WARNING:This is not for serious sophisticated Anime fans!

1pos

Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed<br /><br />adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in<br /><br />college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the<br /><br />Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or<br /><br />interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all<br /><br />game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't<br /><br />open up to film well. Not a lot of fun.

0neg

The Prophecy II, what's there to say about it? They've completely abandoned the originality of the first film, and simply made a Chris Walken splatter film. It's not even written by the original writer!<br /><br />If you've seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2 it's a real disappointment...<br /><br />If you haven't seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2! Go see Nr. 1 to experience something original and fun

0neg

Very possibly one of the funniest movies in the world. Oscar material. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are hilarious and before you see this I suggest you see "South Park" one of the funniest cartoons created. Buy it, you will laugh every time you see it. Pure stroke of genius. If you don't think its funny then you have no soul or sense of humor. 10 out of 10.

1pos

This isn't among Jimmy Stewart's best films--I'm quick to admit that. However, while some view his film as pure propaganda, I'm wondering what's so wrong with that? Yes, sure, like the TV show THE FBI, this is an obvious case of the Bureau doing some PR work to try to drum up support. But, as entertainment goes, it does a good job. Plus, surprisingly enough for the time it was made, the film focuses more on crime than espionage and "Commies". Instead, it's a fictionalization of one of the earliest agents and the career he chose. Now considering the agent is played by Jimmy Stewart, then it's pretty certain the acting and writing were good--as this was a movie with a real budget and a studio who wasn't about to waste the star in a third-rate flick. So overall, it's worth seeing but not especially great.

1pos

First I bough this movie on VHS than I just had to buy it on dvd, it is on of my favorite movies of all time. I have read the book, but I really think the movie is much better. I loved Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma and Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightley was an excellent chose. He was brilliant!<br /><br />It's a 10/10 movie!!!<br /><br />

1pos

I feel very sorry for people who go to movies with a pad and pencil to write down flaws and keep notes on how bad a movie is. I feel equally contempt for people who go to movies and CAN'T suspend reality and/or let themselves enjoy 90 minutes aways from their boring or busy lives! Get a GRIP people. ECGTB is a very ENTERTAINING movie. If you take movies seriously, this is NOT for you. If you are expecting the movie to resemble the book in ANY way, this is not for you. But if you enjoyed the utter hilarity of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, or the "what the hell am I watching" of Moulin Rouge. Or the gross out comedy of "The Sweetest Thing" Then let yourself escape to Cowgirls. It has some really funny parts. Hilarious actually. It also has some really good music;kudos to kd.lang. Also did I mention it has 90 minutes of Uma Thurman.....need I say more?

1pos

I think this still is the best routine. There are some others, like Rock's "bring the pain", and Allen's "Men are Pigs" that are hilarious; "Damon Waynes last stand" is also funny in a tearful way - but this routine has no errors. All the jokes are funny, and the time limit of 70 minutes is perfect. Just long enough to last 20 years. I just love how he allows the audience to be totally themselves and unrestricted. I'm a fan of the classics and for a guy who watched a lot of of Jim Carrey growing up, watching a more laid back comic is pretty cool. Not putting in a category with Ellen and Newhart, but something you can watch if you're bloated. Thanks Eddie, god bless.

1pos

A shaky hand-held camera was used, presumably to give the film a documentary look, but the effect was so exaggerated that I started to get motion-sickness just from watching it. It looked like someone with cerebral palsy was holding the camera (no offense meant to CP sufferers, but I don't think you would expect to get much work as a cinematographer!) The camera work was so nauseating, and so distracting, that my wife and I considered it unwatchable and gave up on it after 10 minutes of torture. I checked back a while later (it was showing on TV), and it hadn't gotten any better. I suggest giving this one a miss unless you need to get rid of any bad sushi you may have eaten!

0neg

Another movie to suffer without an adventure to run, no enigma to solve. Just an illness man, acting like an animal. No a good reason to take this journey. Pitt and Lewis are great actors; magnificent Michelle Forbes but a weak David Duchovny performance...

0neg

Okay, I struggled to set aside the fact that in selling EVP as real the movie was basically lying to me from the get-go. I reasoned that hell, I don't believe in vampires but I still liked Dracula so I could live with this.<br /><br />However, even with that accepted the movie is just not very good. It's competently made and acted, but it doesn't really capture you at all. There are several "jump" moments, and I just looked at them and thought "yeah, I didn't expect that" without actually jumping in the slightest.<br /><br />Also the resolution doesn't make sense. If the force behind this is capable of doing the things it seems to be, then why the hell does it need to use a proxy? Plus, the end caption was absurd. They obviously put it there as part of the "give the movie credibility by claiming it's all real" thing, but for that to work it really needs to be at the start. But they can't put it at the start because then they give the plot away... sticking it in at the end just made it stick out like a sore thumb.

0neg

Anyone who's watched a few Lifetime Movie Network movies knows that plot credibility is the first thing that gets brushed off the planning table. So, when crazed Lara moves into Patti's home and methodically begins to drive her landlady bonkers, I didn't even blink. When Lara eventually ramps up her activities to threatening poor Patti, and dares her to do anything about it, I just nodded. You see, on Planet LMN, people don't behave the way they do for any particular reason, they just do it to keep the action going. Only on Planet LMN could someone almost have the owner of a home thrown out of their own house by means of their seductive powers!! Poor Patti - she just trusted too much, and Lara went off her medicine, and then there was this big fight at the top of the stairs involving a syringe full of deadly stuff that ends up injected into someone's tummy, and a body bag going out the front door. The horror!<br /><br />But take it from me, this Planet LMN product is a classic. You need to watch it once, just for the great laughs you'll have. On the Improbability Scale, I give this film a 95/100. Make a big batch of popcorn and get some apple slices, too. You'll understand later.

0neg

Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.<br /><br />Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.<br /><br />Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?<br /><br />Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period." <br /><br />Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.<br /><br />Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.<br /><br />Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.<br /><br />In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.<br /><br />Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.

0neg

Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old? <br /><br />There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ("tango-tango"). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.<br /><br />The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a "swell" time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell. <br /><br />Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichéd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.<br /><br />The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. "Get off my back!" Lithgow: "I haven't even started climbing on your back." Or, Lithgow to Stallone: "We had a deal, but now we only have each other!" And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on. <br /><br />Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q.

1pos

I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.

0neg

If it's action and adventure you want in a movie, then you'd be best advised to look elsewhere. On the other hand, if it's a lazy day and you want a good movie to go along with that mood, check out "The Straight Story."<br /><br />Richard Farnsworth puts on a compelling performance as the gentle and gentlemanly Alvin Straight, in this true story of Alvin's journey on a riding mower across three states to see his estranged brother who has had a stroke.<br /><br />Farnsworth is perfect in this role, as he travels his long and winding road, making friends of strangers and doling out lots of grandfatherly type advice about family along the way. The story moves along as slowly as the riding mower, but somehow manages to keep the viewer watching, waiting for the next life lesson Alvin's going to offer.<br /><br />Stretch out on the couch, relax and enjoy. It's the only way to watch this very good movie, which rates a 7/10 in my book.

1pos

As an aging rocker, this movie mentions Heep and Quo - my 2 favourite bands ever - but with the incredible cast (everyone) - and the fantastic storyline - I just love this piece of creative genius. I cannot recommend it more highly - and Mick Jones added so much (Foreigner lead and primary songwriter along with the greatest rock singer ever - Lou Gramm) - I have watched this great work more than 10 times- Bill Nighy - what a voice - and Jimmy Nail - talent oozes from every pore - then Astrid.... and Karen..... what more could an aging rocker ask for!! 10/10 - bloody brilliant.<br /><br />Alastair, Perth, Western Oz, Originally from Windsor, England.

1pos

Anna (Charlotte Burke) develops a strange fever that causes her to pass out and drift off into a world of her own creation. A bleak world she drew with a sad little boy as the inhabitant of an old dumpy house in the middle of a lonely field. Lacking in detail, much like any child drawing the house and it's inhabitant Marc (who can't walk because Anna didn't draw him any legs) are inhabitants of this purgatory/limbo world. Anna begins visiting the boy and the house more frequently trying to figure what's what and in the process tries to help save the boy, but her fever is making it harder for her to wake up each time and may not only kill her, but trap her and Marc there forever.<br /><br />Wow! Is a good word to sum up Bernard Rose's brilliantly haunting and poetic Paperhouse. A film that is so simple that it's damn near impossible to explain and impossible to forget. While you may find this puppy in your horror section it's anything but. It's more of a serious fantasy, expertly directed, and exceptionally well acted by it's cast, in particular Charlotte Burke and Elliot Speirs (Marc). And yet, it's not a children's movie either, but meant to make us remember those carefree days of old that are now just dark memories. Rose creates a rich tapestry of moody ambiance that creates a thrilling backdrop for the brilliant story and great actors to play with. Paperhouse stays away from trying to explain it's more dreamy qualities and leaves most things to the viewers imagination. There's much symbolism and ambiguity here to sink your teeth into. Paperhouse enjoys playing games with the viewers mind, engrossing you with it's very own sense of reasoning. As the story unfolded I was again and again impressed at just how powerful the film managed to be up to the finale which left me with a smile on my face and a tear in my eye.<br /><br />Bernard Rose's visuals are brilliant here. He's able to create an unnervingly bleak atmosphere that appears simple on the surface, but as a whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. The acting is of young Charlotte Burke in this, her feature debut, is a truly impressing as well. Unfortunately she's not graced the screen since. A much deserved Burnout Central award only seems proper for that performance. Toward the end the movie lags a bit here and there, but I was easily able to overlook it. I wished they had took a darker turn creating a far more powerful finale that would have proved to be all the more unnerving and truly riveting in retrospect. The movie as is, is still one for the books and deserves to be seen by any serious film lover. It's a poetic ride told through the innocent eyes of a child, a powerful film in which much is left to be pondered and far more to be praised.

1pos

I have probably seen this movie over fifty times by now because of the kids they just cant get enough of Spirit. The best thing about the movie I think is that the animals isn't able to talk, this makes the whole movie more honest and makes a better impression on both kids and the adults so 10/10 from the kids and me

1pos

Since Educating Rita, Julie Walters has been one of my role models, and her performance in this as a woman who helps the man she loves get in synch with his feminine side is magnificent. I would never have believed her character in the hands of a lesser actress, but Walters pulls it off with gusto and panache. Adrian Pasdar gives his best performance to-date in the male lead.

1pos

Ahh, yes, the all-star blockbuster. Take a so-so concept, stuff it into a script and load it down with every single freakin' special effect that the Wizards of Hollyweird can conjure up, then round up the usual suspects: hot up-and-comers, has-beens, wanna-be's and never-wuzzes, and stick 'em all in ensemble roles of various sizes in front of the unforgiving eye of the cameras. And hope to gawd that some of them aren't too old to remember their lines.<br /><br />Leave it to the bishops of Box Office to apply the concept to horror films at last, as was the case with the post-EXORCIST thriller THE SENTINEL. Novelist Jeffrey Konvitz decided to try and one-up Ira Levin's ROSEMARY'S BABY scenario of creepy (and ultimately satanic) neighbors in a New York brownstone. The result was a controversial best-seller that some claimed bordered on the plagiaristic, and an equally controversial, top-heavy/star-laden vehicle co-written and directed by DEATH WISH's Michael Winner, but for many unsettlingly different reasons.<br /><br />Cristina Raines (NASHVILLE) plays successful model Alison Parker, who is pretty much over- stressed and over-worked, (I won't add "overpaid." I mean she IS a model, so that would be redundant), not just by her 24/7 schedule, by also by her insistent , 'wanna-get-married- right-NOW' boyfriend Michael (Chris Sarandon of DOG DAY AFTERNOON and the classic SOB.I.G. movie LIPSTICK). One of the ways she decides to try to get away from it all is to move into her own place; a big, beautiful brownstone in Manhattan which she's able to get dirt-cheap, (that should've been the BIG red flag - cheap real estate in New York!), from the mysteriously accommodating broker Miss Logan (Golden Age screen vet Ava Gardner, fresh from the storm drain in EARTHQUAKE.)<br /><br />Things seem fine at first, but ah, yes...then comes the noises and the loud pounding from the apartment upstairs at night. And what about the REALLY strange neighbors like Gerde (Sylvia Miles) and Sandra (a VERY early Beverly D'Angelo), the nice "single friends" (read: lesbians) living together, and kindly old Mr. Charles Chazen (a nicely creepy Burgess Meredith), who seems maybe a little too concerned with Alison's welfare? And that's not to mention other assorted squirrelly cohabitants (You'll never hear the phrase "Black and white cat, black and white cake" again without wanting to laugh milk through your nose and possibly vomit simultaneously.) Especially the old blind priest living in the penthouse...<br /><br />Things really start to go downhill when an apparition-laden nightmare of Alison's morphs into a grisly murder, (in one of the movie's most underwear-staining scares), and both Alison and Michael, with some assistance from Alison's BFF, Jennifer (Deborah Raffin), begin to piece together the puzzle that reveals the brownstone's dark origins, as well as the murderous agenda of its other-worldly inhabitants, not to mention Alison's connection to them, which as it turns out is anything but coincidental.<br /><br />Although there's nothing controversial about the overstuffed cast, which seems to feature every actor of diverse genres looking for work at the time, (Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Eli Wallach, John Carradine, and even early appearances by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Nana Visitor!) Winner and company went back to bombastic basics and pulled a "Tod Browning"...by enlisting real-life physically-challenged actors to appear in THE SENTINEL'S climactic everything-and-everybody-goes-to-Hell sequence, which I guess any ballsy director would do, finding himself unable to access Linda Blair and a case of green-pea soup. It does definitely leave you with arctic fingers playing your spinal cord like a zither, knowing this juicy little tidbit of info as you watch. And it does feature a technique to which filmmakers have only begun to return very recently: live on-set makeup and special effects that don't involve CGI, (which was pretty much non-existent back then.)<br /><br />THE SENTINEL has that kitschy, late-Seventies cheese factor, but does manage to distinguish itself from time to time with some gasp-inducing moments like the one mentioned above, not to mention that queasy feeling of dread that horror writers find it easy to play upon, of isolation and things that go bump-and-shriek in the night. After all, what living-single-in- the-big-city person hasn't lain in bed in the dark, and listened intently to the sounds of what they HOPE is "the building settling?"<br /><br />Konvitz followed up THE SENTINEL with an inevitable sequel, THE GUARDIAN (not to be confused with the William Friedkin supernatural thriller namesake), that was never adapted for the screen. =sigh of relief=

1pos

There is only one reason to watch this movie if you are not related to one of the stars or a producer: actress Nichole Hiltz. She is the show in this slow moving and wildly unlikely story of revenge. Directed by Simon Gornick, the film stars Joyce Hyser as a betrayed wife who decides to seek revenge on her cheatin' spouse. Oh, but not by conventional means. She plans a total guerrilla war and recruits bad girl Nichole Hiltz as her weapon of choice. She wants Nichole (as Tuesday) to get close to her ex (the handsome but dull Stephan Jenkins, who should stick to music) to embarrass him and ruin his life. David DeLuise is good in his few brief moments, and former "Crime Story" star Anthony Dennison is given virtually nothing to do but scowl. Hiltz on the other hand comes off at various times as sexy and playful, then evil and devious. She also handles vulnerable and "maybe a bit psychotic" well. She's also quite hot (though there's no naughty bits show) so you can understand how she might be able to get to any guy she is aimed at. But the performance is kind of wasted in this movie, which is just not edgy or interesting enough to recommend.

0neg

I remember when this was in theaters, reviews said it was horrible. Well, I didn't think it was that bad. It was amusing and had a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor concerning families around holiday time.<br /><br />Ben Affleck is a rich guy who needs to find a family for Christmas to please his girlfriend. He goes to visit the house he grew up in and strikes a deal to rent the family there for Christmas. I really liked the lawyer scene where they sign a contract. That was funny.<br /><br />So, he makes silly requests of the family and even writes scripts for them to read. Of course, the family has a hot daughter for the love interest. And he learns that the holidays aren't so bad after all.<br /><br />Also, the whole doo-dah act was funny, especially when they replaced the first one with a black guy, and the girlfriends's parents didn't even say anything about it. And the parts where doo-dah is hitting on his "supposed daughter." FINAL VERDICT: I thought it's worth checking out if you catch it on cable.

0neg

Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.<br /><br />“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger! <br /><br />The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer! <br /><br />As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).

1pos

For a first film in a proposed series it achieves the right balance. It is done with style and class showing Modesty's early days as a refugee and the start of her rise to power in the criminal world. I think it is a very honest/true portrayal of her character exactly as the writer Peter O'Donnell intended. Alexandra Staden as Modesty is stunningly beautiful and an excellent choice. She acts very convincingly as the tough survivor with an exterior of cool/intelligent/innocence. And full marks to Tarantino for choosing an unknown actress for the role - much more believeable to have a new face creating the part. I'm looking forward to the next film.

1pos

This movie wastes virtually every actor's talents in what could best be charitably called a "potboiler".<br /><br />Despite it's action-packed 'Top Gun' opening it is all downhill from there with plenty of stereotypes and unlikely situations following each other until you try to choke yourself on your popcorn.<br /><br />There are so many dead-end story lines in this movie I was guessing at one point it was made by splicing together a discarded TV series.<br /><br />Quinn's Mexican drug-lord role is laughable and his 'associates' plucked right out of a 1970's Quinn-Martin cop show. Costner's character is wooden and gives us no reason to believe he actually fell in love with Mendez' wife. Nor are we convincingly led to believe the wife is aching for companionship and will jump the first hot body coming along.<br /><br />Definitely a 'B' movie at best and a huge waste of time for everyone involved.

0neg

The plot has already been described by other reviewers, so I will simply add that my reason for wanting to see this film was to see Gabrielle Drake in all her undoubted glory.<br /><br />Miss Drake has to be one of the sexiest, prettiest examples of "posh totty" to have been committed to celluloid. Of her era and ilk, only the equally exquisite Jane Asher comes close. What was it about actresses with musical brothers? (Nick Drake and Peter Asher) For those who like me have admired Gabrielle, her scenes in this movie will not disappoint. She has a magnificent figure and none of it is left to the imagination here.<br /><br />As a whole, the movie is very poor and being of its time, very cheaply made. The song that covers the opening credits seems to go on forever and is appalling.

0neg

<br /><br />One of the best films I've ever seen. Robert Duvall's performance was excellent and outstanding. He did a wonderful job of making a character really come to life. His character was so convincing, it made me almost think I were in the theater watching it live, I give it 5 stars.

1pos

This adaptation of Pearl S. Buck's film is certainly a classic. A true Hollywood epic, it has all the things a great Hollywood film has: Birth, death, happiness, sadness, exhilaration, despair, and so on. There is only one thing that irks me. I know it was a sign of the times, but neither of the two main characters are played by Asian actors. Paul Muni was a great actor, and he does an admirable job as Wang Lung, the owner of a farm in China. Luise Rainier plays Olan. She does not even look Chinese! I think she tried to get the role, but they should have put Anna May Wong in the role. I know why they didn't, and Ms. Rainier is very good in the film, but they hardly tried to make her look "authentic". Stillm its a great film, especially if you read the book (I did in high school, decades ago). Its a must see, just look beyond the casting. I think you can.

1pos

Eight Simple rules started as a very entertaining series. I love John Ritter and his character Paul Hennessey and the relationship he had with his children was the best part of the show.<br /><br />I have always preferred Kerry to Bridget, Bridget has been done before, Kerry is quite unique and i can relate to her in many ways, although i'm not sure i like the direction her character went in later series.<br /><br />Early episodes were fun, good simple teenage plots about Paul and Cate disciplining the kids, however i think the show lost it's sparkle when John Ritter died. I admired the cast and crew for wishing to continue the series but when he died, i felt the programme did to. To me the whole point of the show was based around the guide of the '8 simple rules of dating my teenage daughter' it was written by a real man with teenage daughters and the relevance and the angle of the show had changed without the Hennessey dad.<br /><br />Bridget seemed to get more annoying, Rory stayed the same and Cate was always giving her offspring life's lessons which before seemed funnier when it was all left to Paul. I think the Granddad is funny (Especially when he's watching Great escape) but feel C.J is unnecessary to the show. He is funny in parts but I felt the story lines at the time of his arrival were very similar to other American comedy series. Over all the newer ones aren't bad just missing excitement and does anyone else find it irritating that Cate works at the school and C.J and Granddad's always there too? I would always recommend this show to friends as it was very strong at the beginning and well worth watching for Paul and Kerry, but later ones were about average at best.

1pos

This one probably does not fit in the bottom of the barrel of mediocre Slasher movies but it's surely a damn bad movie.<br /><br />The Holiday premise made it kind of interesting but after the first scenes the movie demonstrates it's poor production values and stupid plot. I mean, the sub-genre was at the moment all about an unseen maniac slashing teens for no apparent reasons but this one took it too far. There is absolutely no coherence in the events or nothing else to add.<br /><br />The clichès are more than boring, the gore is minimal, and so does the mystery.<br /><br />This is a fairly mediocre slasher entry that shouldn't be hyped even if it has a video nastie label.<br /><br />I am truly disappointed by this overrated piece of trash.

0neg

Playing out as a sort of pre runner to The Great Escape some 13 years later, this smashing little British film plays it straight with no thrills and dare do well overkill. First part of the movie is the set up and subsequent escape of our protagonists, whilst the second part concentrates on their survival whilst on the run as they try to reach Sweden. The film relies on pure characters with simple, effective, and yes, believable dialogue to carry it thru, and it achieves its aims handsomely. No little amount of suspense keeps the film ticking along, and as an adventure story it works perfectly for the time frame it adheres to, so a big thumbs to the film that may well be the first of its type ?.<br /><br />7/10

1pos

After watching two of his silent shorts, 'Elena and her Men (1956)' is my first feature-length film from French director Jean Renoir, and I quite enjoyed it. However, I didn't watch the film for Renoir, but for star Ingrid Bergman, who – at age 41 – still radiated unsurpassed beauty, elegance and charm. Throughout the early 1950s, following her scandalous marriage to Italian Roberto Rossellini, Bergman temporarily fell out of public favour. Her next five films, directed by her husband, were unsuccessful in the United States, and I suspect that Renoir's latest release did little to enhance Bergman's popularity with English-speaking audiences {however, she did regain her former success with an Oscar in the same year's 'Anastasia (1956)'}. She stars as Elena Sokorowska, a Polish princess who sees herself as a guardian angel of sorts, bringing success and recognition to promising men everywhere, before promptly abandoning them. While working her lucky charms to aid the political aspirations of the distinguished General Francois Rollan (Jean Marais), she finds herself falling into a love that she won't be able to walk away from. This vaguely-political film works well as either a satire or a romantic comedy, as long as you don't take it too seriously; it's purely lighthearted romantic fluff.<br /><br />Filmed in vibrant Technicolor, 'Elena and her Men' looks terrific as well, a flurry of bright colours, characters and costumes. Bergman's Polish princess is dreamy and somewhat self-absorbed, not in an unlikable way, but hardly a woman of high principles and convictions. She is persuaded by a team of bumbling government conspirators to convince General Rollan to stage a coup d'état, knowingly exploiting his love for her in order to satisfy her own delusions as a "guardian angel." Perhaps the film's only legitimately virtuous character is Henri de Chevincourt (Mel Ferrer, then Audrey Hepburn's husband), who ignores everybody else's selfish secondary motives and pursues Elena for love, and love alone. This, Renoir proudly suggests, is what the true French do best. 'Elena and her Men' also attempts, with moderate success, to expose the superficiality of upper-class French liaisons, through the clumsy philandering of Eugène (Jacques Jouanneau), who can't make love to his servant mistress without his fiancè walking in on them. For these sequences, Renoir was obviously trying for the madcap sort of humour that you might find in a Marx Brothers film, but the film itself is so relaxed and laid-back that the energy just isn't there.

1pos

I agree with all the accolades, I went through a box of tissues watching this film. It had a gritty authenticity and rang true in every way.<br /><br />The question I'm about to raise represents a current sensibility regarding the treatment of animals. I had a very difficult time with the beginning slaughter of sheep and goats, and the dying deer with its pulsing neck and pooling blood as its life drained away was hideous.<br /><br />This is the age of "no animals were hurt in the production of this move." Iphigenia was made in the late 70's before the advent of computer simulation. Was it possible to fake these animal deaths? Or were these animals slaughtered for art?

1pos

Clara Lago is wonderful as the title character of the film, essentially a film about a Spanish/American girl who moves to Spain with her mom at the time of the Spanish Civil War. It turns out, the mother goes home to die, and she is left with her grandfather. She also makes friends and experiences much in a short time. Tomiche (Juan Jose Ballestra) is at first a nuisance to her then they become close. The film is shot beautifully, bathed in soft colors mostly. Carol yearns for her dad, who is a pilot in the war, and you can feel the love sher has for him. While the war itself is kind of taken a back seat in this film, it envelops the character's lives. I think you'll like it. See it especially for Clara Lago, who does a great job as Carol. She is definitely one to watch.

1pos

If you like Star Wars/Trek, come see where they got all their ideas and cinematic devices. It's my top 2 favorite movies of all times, other-worldly-futuristic and psycho-thriller. The intensity of the root material (Shakespeare's "The Tempest") is not overshadowed by whizbang gimmickry (a la later Lucas). And just because it was made in 1956, don't assume you can 'see the strings' holding the flying saucer up. This was the first movie where you COULDN'T. Miracle it was made at "A-movie" scale, economics and tastes at the time were stacked heavily against it. And director Wilcox's previous 'hit' was "Lassie Come Home". Until I looked him up, I assumed 'Fred Wilcox' was a pseudonym for a director who was already or later became famous, but at the time didn't want to be associated with sci-fi, which was strictly a "B" genre back then. This was either a very VERY visionary production, or a very fortuitous 'mistake' on the part of the folks who bankroll Hollywood.<br /><br />There are the massive-scale mattes with live action almost microscopically inserted that Lucas used extensively. There are intelligent machines that transcend the stereotypical 'user interface'; "computers", as they've come to be portrayed much less futuristically in later works. Star Trek's 'transporter' is there, visually, almost unaltered by Roddenberry 10 years later. And if the Trek/Wars technobabble turns you off, FP's scientific references are not overdone and are all accurate, even today. The "ship" set is comprehensive, sparklingly realistic, as good as anything you've seen since, and more convincing than anything 'Trek' has done, for TV or film. We didn't get to spend as much time there as I would have liked.<br /><br />If you ever wondered how movies got into space so competently, watching FP will explain all that. It's definitely not 'Wagontrain to the Stars'.

1pos

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

1pos

I think it was Ebert who gave Stella four out of four stars but, other than his, I have never read a positive review of this sadly misunderstood drama about class divisions, love, and sacrifice (three themes most great romantic stories or films have in common).<br /><br />Here the major theme is class division. Stella is a story from depression era America. That said, it was translated to the screen then in such a memorable fashion that this remake (if you ask a Stanwyck fan or two) was not exactly appreciated. Fans of the original never gave it a chance. Furthermore, this version of Stella was made in the 1990s, not exactly a time of great financial trouble in America (as the depression was).<br /><br />Now is the time to remove the rosy-coloured glasses, in the midst of a new era of recession and poverty in America, and see that this powerful story still rings true, is as timely and relevant as ever, in its updated format.<br /><br />Yes, class divide is the major theme here. Stella is among the working poor, single, with big dreams but little hope of realizing those dreams. She works in a bar, doesn't have much money, lives in a crummy apartment. You get the drift. In the morning, she doesn't really want to get out of bed. On her wall, pictures of movie stars she idolizes.<br /><br />A man sees her dance at the bar. He's wealthy, educated, from one of those upper class families that has nothing in common with Stella's. His major concern is what ivy league college to attend, her's is how to pay the rent, how to be 'happy.' They have an affair. They like each other. Stella ends up pregnant. Stella tells the guy the news. His response? "How about an abortion?" She replies, "I just wanted a room full of balloons." He supplies the balloons, and the proposal, but she sees his heart is not in it, and has too much pride to accept. She sends him packing.<br /><br />Her daughter is eventually torn between the two lifestyles--the love she has for her mom and the advantages and happiness and love held out to her by her wealthy father. Stella, alone and unloved, and not wanting her daughter to become as unhappy as her someday, makes the ultimate sacrifice. She gives up the only love and happiness she has ever known to ensure the happiness of her daughter, and perhaps live vicariously, and with hope, knowing that at least her daughter found something to live for.<br /><br />Now, for the movie. Everything is right about it. Beautiful score, artful cinematography, great set design (contrast between the two lifestyles; the messy apt. and the decorated mansions), wonderful and heartfelt performances by the whole cast, with Bette Midler, in particular, Oscar-worthy.<br /><br />This is a film which is much more significant and well-made than you've been led to believe.

1pos

don't expect much from this film. In many ways this film resembles a film that Doris Day starred in in 1956,title, Julie. In this film Doris,who was a flight attendant,stewardess,in those days,landed the air craft after her derange husband,played by Louis Jordan shot the captain. She did a far better job,more convincing,than Kim Ojah,who took control of a 747 and manage to land it without much help from the control tower. I know a little about 747 aircraft,i use to be a flight attendant myself. Like i said,do not expect much from this film,it was done on a cheap budget. The producers were to cheap to use a plane with the name of a airline on it. Oceanic is one name that several movies have used. The only writing on this plane was the name of the company that made the aircraft.

0neg

I have to agree with most everyone's opinion that this show was poorly produced as well as written.The acting was not much more above the lower production values however I feel an actor can only rely on the material provided to them and make the best of it. In keeping with this thought I feel it is important to point out that one actor has risen and persevered well beyond this campy to tasteless production to have become a respectable and quite talented performer.I am referring to Laura Harris a Canadian born actor who has etched her way through many poorly produced shows and movies to find a place on the HBO hit "Dead Like Me" where she plays the role of Daisy Adair and to her credit she handles this role in an efficient manner.I remember having a typical boyhood crush on the young actress during this series where she played Ashley a soft spoken yet intelligent 7th grader.I felt as though if anyone might "make it" from this series it surely would be Laura Harris and true to her nature she did excel in the acting field to win the respect of many producers who now recognize her for her talent as well as unique Nordic blond allure. If you ever do have the opportunity to view this series I recommend that you have something epic to watch after wards such as the 'Godfather' or perhaps 'Beaches' in order to remind yourself that there is after all a great deal of true production integrity and value out there and that this series is only a low-budget reminder of what Laura Harris can simply state about her time on the show and I bet she would quote many a young actors words of defense by saying "It's a start!"

0neg

Embarrassingly, I just watched this movie for the first time, 13 years after its release. It's a story that any father or brother can relate to... one brother is a bit 'wild,' the other brother is the typical older child. Craig Sheffer is a little too unemotional as the oldest brother, but Pitt is amazing, and Skerritt is perfectly cast as the father. The fishing scenes that were filmed in Montana are absolutely breathtaking... I had no idea that fly fishing could be so attractive. The movie closely follows the book, with only a few modifications to make it more appropriate for a movie format. Unlike most book to movie stories, this one measures up. It's a perfect movie for anyone who wants a quiet night with a powerful and somewhat emotional movie.

1pos

I have a 19-month old and got really tired of watching Care Bears all the time. Rooney is a great dancer, who cares if he is gay. This guy must have been a cheerleader or something.<br /><br />Beats Barney, cant get the songs out of my head....must...stop singing........Doodlebops songs........NOW.<br /><br />Must have 10 lines of text so I must continue.....what about when the say all the Canadian stuff like OOOUT Aboooot. Whacky Canadians.....Jazmine is rhyming too much, she must be Dutch.<br /><br />Knock knock, who's there, Dee Dee, super Hottie<br /><br />Bus driver Bob cannot dance, take lessons from Rooney

1pos

I still can't believe that Wes Craven was responsible for this piece of crap.This movie is worse than "Deadly Friend".The plot is stupid,the acting is mediocre and the film is deadly dull.I don't know why Wes Craven hates his debut "Last House on the Left"-an absolute masterpiece of the genre and likes(probably)this turkey.Don't get me wrong,I really like some of his movies,but it was a real torture sitting and watching this.

0neg

I originally watched 8 simple rules on the Disney channel UK for the first series and got completely hooked. When they didn't show it any more \ was annoyed, but then abc 1 satred showing the 2nd series. i didn't think another series would start after I read John ritter had died, however the 2nd series wasn't amazing the latest series is back to it's old excellent standard. i hope they go on to produce more shows soon even though i could watch each show a thousand times. Kaley couco is my favourite character as airhead Bridget and also performs amazing in Charmed. Rory is also good, he shares my name and Grampa as well.I'll keep on watching it until it ends until then I hope it carries on as funny as ever

1pos