Datasets:

denis1203

/

imdb3000examples

like 0

I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works.

'Succubus', the edited version of 'Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden', is a struggle to sit through, even at a lean 76 minutes; any more of this dreadfully boring and pretentious Euro horror tripe and I may have slipped into a coma.<br /><br />Jess Franco once again delivers a truly awful piece of 60s trash that appears to have been made by a cast and crew out of of their heads on Class A hallucinogenics, since not one second of this mess made any sense whatsoever. Apparently, this is one of the better of his 180+ films – it's hard to believe that there are worse efforts out there.<br /><br />The unfathomable plot deals with Franco's usual themes of sex, violence and lesbianism and throws in a bit of S&M for good measure, and yet it still manages to remain mind numbingly tedious.<br /><br />I may leave it quite a while before entering the world of dodgy Euro Horror again – life is too short to be spent watching bilge like this.

A disappointing film.<br /><br />The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.<br /><br />Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?<br /><br />Technically, a disgusting shot film.

Kubrick meets King. It sounded so promising back in the spring of 1980, I remember. Then the movie came out, and the Kubrick cultists have been bickering with the King cultists ever since.<br /><br />The King cultists say Stanley Kubrick took a great horror tale and ruined it. The Kubrick cultists don't give a damn about King's story. They talk about Steadicams, tracking shots, camera angles.This is a film, they insist: It should be considered on its own. As it happens, both camps are correct. Unfortunately.<br /><br />If one views it purely as an adaptation of King's novel, "The Shining" is indeed a failure, a wasted opportunity, a series of botched narrative gambits. <br /><br />I used to blame that on Kubrick's screenwriter. The writer Diane Johnson (author of Le Marriage, L'Affaire, Le Divorce, etc.) has a reputation as an novelist of social manners. Maybe she was chosen for her subtle grasp of conjugal relations or family dynamics. But the little blue-collar town of Sidewinder, Colorado doesn't exist on any map in her Francophile universe. <br /><br />Kubrick the Anglophile probably found her congenial, however. He, of course, is the real auteur. And considered on its own merits, his screenplay for "The Shining" -- with its mishmash of abnormal psychology, rationalism, supernaturalism, and implied reincarnation -- just doesn't stand up to logical analysis.<br /><br />I'm willing to consider Kubrick's "Shining" on its own terms. I'm even willing to take it as something other than a conventional horror-genre movie. But it doesn't succeed as a naturalistic study of isolation, alienation, and madness either. Parsed either way, the film pretty much falls apart.<br /><br />Are the horrors of the Overlook Hotel real? Or do they exist only in the mind -- first as prescient nightmares suffered by little Danny Torrance, then as the hallucinations of his father? One notes how whenever Jack Torrance is seen talking to a "ghost" he is in fact looking into a mirror. One notes how the hotel's frozen topiary-hedge maze appears to symbolize Jack's stunted, convoluted psyche. Very deep stuff.<br /><br />But if indeed the Overlook's "ghosts" are purely manifestations of Jack Torrance's growing insanity, then who exactly lets the trapped Jack out of the hotel kitchen's dead-bolted walk- in closet, so that he can go on his climactic ax-wielding rampage?<br /><br />And can ANYONE explain, with a straight face, that black-and-white photograph (helpfully labelled "1921") of Nicholson as a tuxedoed party-goer that pops up out of left field and onto a hotel-ballroom wall during the film's closing seconds? Are we to seriously conclude that Jack Torrance's Bad Craziness stems from a some sort of "past life" experience? (And if you swallow that, since when are reincarnated people supposed to be exact physical replicas their past selves?)<br /><br />Maybe Kubrick didn't care about his storyline. Maybe only wanted to evoke a mood of horror. Whatever the case, the film tries to hedge its narrative bets -- to have it both ways, rational and supernatural. As a result, the story is a mess. This movie hasn't improved with age, and it certainly doesn't improve with repeated viewings.<br /><br />I don't deny that a few moments of fear, claustrophobia, and general creepiness are scattered throughout this long, long film. But those gushing Elevators o' Blood, seen repeatedly in little Danny's visions, are absurd and laughable. And Jack Torrance's infamous tag lines ("Wendy, I'm home!" and "Heeeeeere's JOHNNY!") merely puncture the movie's dramatic tension and dissipate its narrative energy. (I know: I sat in the theater and heard the audience laugh in comic relief: "Whew! Glad we don't have to take this stuff seriously!") Finally, Kubrick is completely at sea -- or else utterly cynical -- during those scenes in which Wendy wanders around the empty hotel while her husband tries to puree their son. A foyer full of mummified guests, all sitting there dead in their party hats? Yikes, now I really am afraid.<br /><br />Given Jack Nicholson's brilliance over the years, one can only assume that he gave just the sort of eyeball-rolling, eyebrow-wiggling, scenery-chomping performance that the director wanted. The performance of Shelley Duvall, as a sort of female version of Don Knotts in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken," is best passed over in silence.<br /><br />This movie simply doesn't succeed -- not as an adaptation, not on its own terms. It probably merits a 3 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 1 because it has been so GROTESQUELY over-rated in this forum.

I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.<br /><br />Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.<br /><br />This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.

I hate this movie! It was NOTHING like the book, and just thinking about it makes me mad. If you watch the movie before reading the book, then yeah, it's a good movie. But King's book was AMAZING and this movie was nothing like it. I mean, the general meaning might be sort of similar but most aspects of the movie are completely different. The ending for example! So in the book it is extremely intense and Danny and Wendy escape seconds before the hotel explodes. but in this horrible movie version jack like takes them through a stupid maze... yeah, there is no maze in the book and there is no reason for it. Another part that made me angry was that jack just kills Mr. Halloran! what the heck, he is basically the hero of the book and they just kill him off like he wasn't important. Overall, it was just bad that the movie was so extremely off.

Many King fans hate this because it departed from the book, but film is a different medium and books should change when they make the jump. That notwithstanding, the movie does fail completely, but it fails entirely on film terms. I'd like to smack the people who tell me it's the scariest movie ever made. I always follow up with the question "Really... exactly what scene scared you?" Every fan I've asked, goes silent. Occasionally someone, at a loss for a decent scare (There are none...), names the "Grape-juice-shooting-out-of-elevators" shtick. If you're afraid of that, I don't know what to tell you, except maybe that you're easily scared. I just rolled my eyes watching these z-grade horror ideas play out in this schlocky, incoherent movie.<br /><br />One place it diverts from the book and really is insipid is the tedious work the movie does to get Mr Halloran up to the Overlook only to kill him; with the dumbest member of the audience knowing that Jack is waiting behind one of the columns in the corridor that it takes Halloran FOREVER to walk down. Really one of the stupidest sequences ever put on film. <br /><br />Oh, and nice choice for Mr. Halloran's artwork Stanley! Black light afro-nymphomaniacs really add to the mood and character development of a horror movie. Has there ever been a more "off," out-of-place shot in any movie ever made?<br /><br />I consider it a miracle that I was eventually able to bypass this turd, and agree that Kubricks 2001 is a truly important film, given the immense 'bad will' generated by both this stupid, stupid movie, and the cult of fawning but inarticulate Kubrick fan-boys, who couldn't describe an idea at work in it with every film resource in the Library of Congress in front of them. <br /><br />Toss in the grotesque overacting of Jack Nicholson, the introduction of dumb one-liners at tense moments, and the Razzie nominated performance of Shelly Duvall and you have a very crappy movie.

These writings write about the end of the plot so don't read it if you haven't seen this rubbish.<br /><br />I found this rubbish film in the horror section which made me think it would be a horror. If I owned a video store I'd put it in the BORING section. This film is so rubbish it will make you feel like you have lost your socks.<br /><br />This film contains endless shots of people driving as if that was scary. Well I drive to work and back (and sometimes to the store or to visit my cats) almost every day and trust me it's not scary. It even starts with 20 minutes of some people driving. Even the little kid does it too. Round and round he goes and he never stops. What's so scary about watching a little kid riding a bicycle for an hour? I think NOTHING and if you watch it you will not think so too.<br /><br />The family in the car arrive at a big castle and they are given a tour just walking around endlessly looking at kitchens. Then the man walks around a for an hour and tries to kill his family for no reason. That's all that happens and as you can see it's rubbish.

Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing "Wednesday". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century.

Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.

Ok, honestly I dont see why everybody thinks this is so great. Its really not. There were two good things that came out of this movie 1. Jack's performance, he was very good I can tip my hat for him. 2. Danny's performance, he was good. No other then that it got pretty stupid. And, what was Stanley Kubrick thinking drafting Shelly as the Wendy? She was so bad. She looked the same every time she got scared. The problem with this movie was the ending. I would have had more respect for it if Kubrick would have ended it differently. And, the over all movie was just stupid. The problem with the movie is that the book was so much better. So dont see the movie read the book and you will be much better off. 3/10.

I am going to keep this short.This "adaption" of the wonderful King book is a bad joke and nothing more.Of course there are many Kubrick and Nickolson fans in this site and,as a result,this movie has mysteriously find its way in the top-250.<br /><br />Jack Nicholson is laughable as Torrance and so is Shelley Duvall.The story,that has nothing to do with the book,is an incoherent mess and the characters of Jack and Wendy Torrance are complete jokes.<br /><br />My advice to anyone that hasn't read the book and wants to understand the characters of this story:stick to the TV series ....<br /><br />Oh ,and the people who are saying that Kubrick had every right to destroy the King story cause King is...not a good writer should stick to reviewing "masterpieces" like "eyes wide shut".

After just finishing the book the same day I watched the movie, I knew what was supposed to happen. I had high expectations of the movie, because of the rating. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 stars is that it was alright trying to be a movie. I have a couple main points for not liking this movie.<br /><br />********** SPOILERS **********<br /><br />1. The casting. Jack Nicholson barely fits into Jack Torrence's character. Also, I would have NEVER picked Shelly Duvall for Wendy. I pictured Wendy much differently. I can see why they picked Jack Nicholson though, the grin, the pointy eyebrows, but he's not supposed to really look 'evil'. He's supposed to look normal, and he turns evil. Also, they make one of the worst movie couples. Danny was alright, he needed more life though. He acted way to droney.<br /><br />2. The screenplay. They cut out so many things that were in the book, and added things. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to in the movie were either deleted, changed, or handled wrongly. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to seeing (the hedge animals, the roque mallet, the elevator) were not in the movie, and it was 2 and half hours!! I was extremely irritated.<br /><br />3. The Ending. The ending was changed completly, Halorann died, Jack froze to death, Wendy never got hurt...The Overlook didn't blow up. The Ending was so cool in the book, and the movie messed it up so horribly, I was apalled. Hallorann was never supposed to die, but Jack killed him with an ax. If they wanted to kill him, at least have Jack use a roque mallet. You never even saw a roque mallet during the whole movie.<br /><br />There are other things that I didn't like about the movie, but there are things that were all right. The camera angels were cool, the blood coming out of the elevator (didn't happen in the book) was cool, but maybe I was too irritated that the movie didn't go with the book, to try to be scared at all. I reccomend reading the book, before you see this movie. I applaud Stephen King for actually agreeing to sign a contract to not dis Stanley Kubrik any more. I would never have done that, I would have taken all the rights I could get to yell at him all day. I can't wait to see the 6 hour version, at least it has the hedge animals.<br /><br />Rating: 2/10

This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb.

One Star. That's all this documentary deserves. I haven't felt this disappointed in watching a movie, let alone a documentary, in quite some time.<br /><br />I'm a BIG fan of the "Walking With..." series, including it's Nigel Marvin spin-offs, for all their gleeful fun yet informative information. And although the subject of prehistoric man has never interested me nearly as much as other prehistoric creatures, the subject is still interesting and unique to explore. Having seen all the other docs from the series, I figured I need to see this one as well, especially after seeing relatively good reviews in other places.<br /><br />Well for those of you who put up a good review of this doc... what were you thinking?! lol.<br /><br />Though the information that they were able to get through was interesting, the presentation failed in every other way possible. It had a terrible flow, was incredibly unfocused in what it was trying to say (with information scrambled and sometimes out of of place), horrible effects (that includes the few moments of CGI and especially the makeup effects), and overused MTV-style camera effects.<br /><br />Speaking of the makeup effects, one reviewer here mentioned how laughable the scene was when the cavemen come across this giant ape and how it looks a lot like a 70s man-in-suit horror movie. Well there are plenty of moments just like that were the people portraying the ape men looked ridiculous and acted ridiculous. None of this is helped by horrible camera positions and compositions.<br /><br />The worst part of all is none of it is shown in an interesting or dynamic way, or looks remotely real. It doesn't even look like it was taken seriously. It also lacked any emotional punch that the predecessors of the series had. Remember the episode in "Walking With Dinosaurs" of the fate of the Ornithochirus (sp?)? That episode still gets me on the verge of tears every time I watch it. It's this sort of engagement with the subject that lacks here most of all. When you are more engaged in the subject and it's own personal story, even one that is just speculation, you care more about the facts surrounding it.<br /><br />The only saving graces of this production are the fairly good narration (at least in the BBC version I saw) and the music. Otherwise, DO NOT bother even renting this one unless you want to have a good laugh (which I did frequently, but usually followed by rolling eyes). This does not belong on the shelf with the other "Walking With..." docs.<br /><br />And does it make sense to learn that this doc was NOT produced or directly involved with the same people who did the others in the series? Hmmm...

OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.<br /><br />I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).<br /><br />This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.<br /><br />I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.<br /><br />Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...

The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.<br /><br />I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.<br /><br />The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.<br /><br />I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit.

This has to be, by far, the absolute worst movie I have seen in the last 20 years. When I saw that Michael Madsen was in it I figured it couldn't be too bad a movie since he has been in some pretty decent films, and he was a pretty fair actor. WRONG! No one should waste their time on this film. I fast forwarded through 80 percent of it and I don't feel that I missed a thing.

It is a pity that you cannot vote zero stars on IMDb, because I would not have hesitated! In fact I would go so far as to say that this film was in the negative stars. <br /><br />I, like many others, bought this film thinking that because it has Michael Madsen in it, it could be good... No chance! This film was shocking! Imagine a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful', well, Primal Instinct did not even come close to that good, and I had previously thought that there would be nothing worse than a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful'. <br /><br />Michael Madsen, how could you do this to us? The worst part is, I didn't fast forward a bit, I was hoping that at the end they would reveal that it was all some sort of sick joke, that they thought it would be funny to make us watch such a horribly bad film.<br /><br />Where do I start...? Directing - Zero Stars, Screenplay - Zero Stars, Acting - Zero Stars, Cinematography - Zero Stars, Digital Effects - Zero Stars, Production Design - Zero Stars, Make-up - Zero Stars, Casting - Zero Stars, Editing - Zero Stars, Trailer - Half a Star, Graphic Design - Half a Star, DVD Menu - Half a Star.<br /><br />However I think that it is very important to have seen bad films just so that you know what a really bad film is, so for that reason I am happy that I saw this film, just so that I have a bad film to put at the bottom of my list.

This has to be the worst movie I have seen. Madsen fans don't be drawn into this like I was. He is only in it for a maximum of five minutes. This movie is so bad that the only reason why you would watch it is if all the rest of the movies on earth as well as t.v. had been destroyed.

A BDSM "sub-culture" of Los Angeles serves as backdrop for this low budget and shabbily constructed mess, plainly a vanity piece for its top-billed player, Celia Xavier, who also produces and scripts while performing a dual role as twin sisters Vanessa and Celia. A question soon develops as to whether or not some rather immoderate camera, lighting and editing pyrotechnics can ever reach a point of connection to a weak and often incoherent narrative that will not be taken seriously by a sensate viewer. Celia is employed as a highly motivated probation officer for the County of Los Angeles, while her evil natured twin has become an iconic figure within her fetishistic world largely because of erotic performances upon CD-ROMS, but when disaster befalls "Mistress Vanessa", virtuous Celia, determined to unearth her sister's vicious attacker, begins a new job as a "sex slave" at the private Castle Club where the specialty of the house is a "dungeon party". Two FBI field agents (whose deployment to the Vanessa case is ostensibly required due to her involvement with internet BDSM sites), in addition to a Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective, are assigned to investigate the crime, while endeavouring to provide security for Celia whose enthusiastic performance in her new vocation is avidly enough regarded by her customers as to have created conditions of personal danger for her. Flaws in logic and continuity abound, such as a homicide being allocated to L.A.P.D.'s Operations-South Bureau, a region of the metropolis that is far removed from the setting of the film. Direction is unfocused and not aided by erratic post-production editing and sound reproduction. The mentioned photographic gymnastics culminate with a batty montage near the movie's end of prior footage that is but tangentially referent to the scenario. One solid acting turn appears among this slag: Stan Abe as a zealous FBI agent.

This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.

I just watched this film 15 minutes ago, and I still have no idea what I just watched. Mainly I think it's a film about an internet S&M "star" of CD Roms that are about as realistic as flash cartoons online. She's murdered by someone, which causes her sister and a crack team of 2 FBI agents to investigate the death. The local homicide division of Big City, USA is also investigating, though most of his work comes by the way of oogling the CD ROMs which he claims are as realistic "as the real thing". I know. Wow.<br /><br />Michael Madsen is the only one in the film that has any kind of credits behind him. He's in the film for about 15 minutes, and half of that is him banging the main girl for seemingly no apparent reason. I won't even explain the ending, because quite frankly I can't make it out myself. But before the final scene, we're treated to a 3 or 4 minute montage of everything in the film. Honestly, they could have ran that then the final scene and it would have been the same effect with the cross eyed direction and all.<br /><br />All in all, stay away from this film. I got it because I love bad movies and I love Michael Madsen. I really could have used that 80 some minutes on something else and have been more satisfied. Like, playing that game with a knife where you jab at your hand repeatedly. That for 80 minutes would be much more entertaining.

I agree totally with the last commenter this could be the worst movie ever made .I too had to fast forward through most of this movie. Michael Madsen must have done this movie as a favor to someone.The picture quality is grainy all the way through .And what little plot there is,is just plain stupid .I give this movie a 1 out of 10 if I could give it a lower score I would .Don't waste your time on this movie or you'll regret it.

The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.

[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]<br /><br /> Timon and Pumbaa are watching The Lion King. Timon decides to go back BEFORE the beginning, to when the story really began. So they go back. Way back. Back even before Simba was born. Back to Timon's old home which was miles away from Pride Rock. A clan of meerkats burrowed underground to hide from hyenas. The worst digger in the clan was a pompous, self-centered meerkat named Timon. His mother took pity on him but Uncle Max just shook his head. Mother suggested putting Timon on sentry duty; Timon had dreams of a bigger and better place out there somewhere. Just then, hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed arrived and nearly killed poor Uncle Max. That did it. The other meerkats just wanted Timon to go away while Timon took it upon himself to leave. So he kissed his mom goodbye and started off. He didn't get very far before he started getting homesick. Just then he met Rafiki, who taught him to look beyond what he sees. Timon had no clue what that meant so he continued on and met a warthog named Pumbaa, who was all alone due to a flatulence problem. Timon and Pumbaa join up then, but Timon declared them acquaintances, rather than friends.<br /><br /> They soon arrive at Pride Rock where all the zebras, antelopes, wildebeests, rhinoceroses, giraffe's, elephants and many other plain animals had gathered. What was going on? Timon didn't care. They pressed on. Timon then saw Rafiki atop Pride Rock lifting into the air something he couldn't see. Just then all the animals took a bow. Was this to honor the birth of the new king? No, Pumbaa had passed gas and the animals were bowing to cover their noses; Timon and Pumbaa try an assortment of new homes, but each are discomforting due to incessant singing or hyenas or a large stampede of wildebeests! Pumbaa and Timon suddenly find themselves heading down stream. When they reach land, Timon decides to give up. But then they gaze around at their newfound paradise. It was beautiful: trees and water falls as far as the eye could see. Timon named the place after a strange phrase he learned from Rafiki: Hakuna Matata. Timon and Pumbaa go out bowling for buzzards one afternoon when they suddenly run into Simba. They take him under their wing and become father figures. They teach him the arts of bug eating and belching contests. Pretty soon, a teenage Simba takes on Timon in a snail slurping contest. Simba won, leaving Timon deathly ill.<br /><br /> Then one day, Simba's childhood friend Nala arrived. Timon and Pumbaa just knew she'd break up the friendship. Suddenly, Simba runs away. Nala and Pumbaa race after him, but not Timon. He chose to stay at "Hakuna Matata" by himself, until Rafiki "talked" some sense into him, so he joins his friends at Pride Rock. Timon's mother and Uncle Max arrive then. While Simba battles Scar, Mother and Max dig a large hole to trap hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed in. It worked. Scar is soon flung down the same hole where he is devoured by the hyenas. Then all is well. Mother, Uncle Max and the rest of the meerkats go live with Timon and Pumbaa in the paradise that is Hakuna Matata. Back to the present, Timon and Pumbaa finish the movie when suddenly Mother, Uncle Max, Simba and Rafiki want to watch it again. So do Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Snow White, the Seven Dwarfs, Dumbo, Peter Pan, the Lost Boys, Mad Hatter, March Hare, Genie, Aladdin, and Jasmine.<br /><br /> Well, I must say that The Lion King 1 1/2 wasn't as good as I had hoped. It was too ridiculous and silly. The original Lion King was a masterpiece. It had a serious story with light comedy thrown in. This one was just silly and made a mockery of it. I swear, sometimes Timon and Pumbaa are just way too overplayed. They're overplayed to the point of no longer being funny, just annoying. The original voice cast is back: Nathan Lane as Timon, Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa, Matthew Broddrick as Adult Simba, Whoopi Goldberg as Shenzi, Cheech Marin as Bonzai, Jim Cummings as Ed, Robert Guillame as Rafiki. New to the cast are Julie Kavner of TV's (Too) long running series The Simpsons as Timon's mom and Jerry Stiller as Uncle Max. So anyway, this movie isn't The Lion King III, and it isn't II because there already is a II. It takes place right after Part I and Part II is a ways away. Hence, it's 1 1/2. In conclusion, I don't recommend this to die hard Lion King fans because it's far too ridiculous and frivilous. However the kids will love it so I recommend it to them. I hope this will also be the LAST Lion King movie. Two is enough. "The Lion King 1 1/2". What we've come to expect from Disney sequel makers.<br /><br />-

I saw and liked the first two a lot, really. Especially because the second is not just a try to make another one as good as the first. And it's a story standing alone. You don't have to know the first movie. I liked that in the "Free Willy" movies, too.<br /><br />But... the third, here is absolutely useless! I tried it with a friend of mine, because we both liked the first two. We decided to stop after a good half an hour. The movie is okay, there are funny parts in it alright. But what for? Timon and Pumba were funny creatures in the first two movies. What Lion King 1 1/2 is for me is: a hard attempt to get even more fun of the first movie than it had already, plus telling the story from their point of view. But what for? I'd really like to know. You know, the idea of the two of them sitting in the cinema watching the first one, is really nice. But what comes after is mostly unnecessary. I guess many people liked Timon and Pumba, and so do I really. Yet, for me many parts were very constructed with a try to be funny. No chance, most of it wasn't funny at all, at least for me. Btw. what was the movie about anyway? Was it a) about Timon and Pumba or b) an attempt to get more fun out of the first movie? I tend to choose option b and I'm very disappointed about it.<br /><br />If you like to see stories like: "the story behind xy", you should see "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" by Tom Stoppard with Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. That's really funny and no try to get more out of "Hamlet" then it has.

A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10

Having watched both the Lion King and Lion King II and enjoyed both thoroughly. I thought Lion King 1.5 might be worth watching. What a disappointment ! Disney must be getting desperate for revenues.<br /><br />Especially now that they lost the deal with pixar.<br /><br />Basically, they just picked up some bits of footage that were left on the editor's floor (or garbage can) and glued them together to make a<br /><br />quick buck. Unlike LK I & II, both of which had strong story lines.<br /><br />This movie hardly has a story at all. While the characters and animation are always fun to look at, there is simply not enough material here for a movie. Some of the bits could have been good 2nd disk fillers on the original offerings.<br /><br />Disney - Shame on you for putting this trash out to make a quick buck!<br /><br />Next time take the time and effort and put our an enduring work.

I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making "straight-to-video" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a "new perspective" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a "new version of the movie we all love." Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original "Lion King" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.<br /><br />Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...<br /><br />The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up.

There really wasn't much of a story in this film. It loosely based itself off the events in the first Lion King movie. It is supposed to be how Timon and Pumbaa met via their aloneness. But there isn't much more than that.<br /><br />It mixes some scenes from the original, then it ab-libs about how this movie changed them a little bit. But still, is that it? I was hoping for something a little more. Instead, all I have to show for it is an empty plot with little explanation.<br /><br />I guess if you wanted to see other meerkats in the Lion King universe, then this is it. But other than that, it does little justice for the animators. Disney really should stop these direct-to-video productions. It really was quite boring and could have used Jason Statham. "D-"

I give this film it's props that it is very well made and reasonably well acted. BUt I couldn't get past the implausibility of the whole thing.<br /><br />First and foremost, a game built around the notion of "Russian Roulette" that has to fill on hour. the big problem is that if you are doing a "live" show, you run the possibility that your first contestant will be the one unlucky enough to draw the "real" bullet. Then what do you do? You have 50 minutes of show to fill and nothing to show. The corollary is that Okay, you get to the end and the first five contestants survive, which means number six has the bullet and can't possibly get the payout. He isn't going to shoot himself at that point, so it's kind of anti-climatic. <br /><br />second problem, almost as big. Human nature. People are going to flinch, panic, soil their underwear and do things that would otherwise not make very good television. Too much randomness. That's why "real" Reality television is actually tightly scripted and even more tightly edited.<br /><br />(The only random thing is the "performance artist's" rant about female sacrifices, which were actually rare historically. Even that was predictable, since she went through with shooting herself to no effect.) <br /><br />We are led to believe the shows ratings would increase while it was going on at 1 AM in the morning (unlikely) with the token Asian girl announcing each boost in ratings.<br /><br />A point on race and sex. Big surprise the movies two minority (one gay) and two female contestants are the ones who survive. So we are left with the two white males, and of course, the slightly less likable of them is the one who buys it. The purpose of such a show would be it's randomness, but the guy you like the least is the guy who dies.<br /><br />the Climax is that after spending two hours fighting for televised suicide, the Eva Mendes character (Mendes produced and starred in this thing, so she has no one to blame but herself) actually grows a conscience when someone dies. What did she THINK was going to happen? She is promptly shot by a bystander angry about the whole thing (motives never explained) and the show went on to be a big hit. Really? <br /><br />the problem with media satire is that it has to either have some grounding in reality or it has to be so over the top to be ludicrous (like Network). This is neither.

Live! Yes, but not kicking.<br /><br />True story: Some time ago, a Dutch TV station made an announcement that they were going to air a new reality show. A contest rather. The main participant in this show would be a woman who was dying of something terrible and she would be donating her kidneys to one lucky person with progressive kidney failure. For real.<br /><br />The country and the international media were all over this story like flies on a turd, saying it was appalling, immoral, what-is-this-world-coming-to, and the like. In a way, I had to agree.<br /><br />As the months passed, the tension built up to a degree that the government was mostly occupied by the issue of whether they should let this show go ahead or not, instead of running the country.<br /><br />The show did air and right up to the last moment they were pushing ahead. And up to the last moment the country was up in arms, the Prime Minister making speeches, every newspaper writing about it, everyone in the country holding their breaths. And the network pushed on. Towards a new frontier in television. And they definitely succeeded in doing just that. They pushed the envelope.<br /><br />The show aired and we all watched a terminally ill woman selecting the right candidate to receive her kidneys so he or she would live, whilst she would die shortly after.<br /><br />And then, in the last moments of the show it was revealed that it was a partial hoax. The woman was not ill, but all the candidates were. There was no kidney auction. The whole show, that, with the publicity and the commercials and all the discussions, built up for months to a fantastic climax, was a publicity stunt to focus attention on the problem of major shortages in organ donors. The man who founded this particular network himself died of kidney disease.<br /><br />Now THIS is television. Leaving everybody far behind in amazement.<br /><br />Don't give me a poorly acted, poorly directed flick about some woman trying to get a Russian Roulette show on American TV.<br /><br />As if.<br /><br />*Spoiler* As if I'm going to believe they would get this through the FCC. As if I'm going to believe this would get through the US Supreme Court on the basis of free expression. As if I'm gonna believe the ridiculous ending where this woman pulled it off and has conscience issues because some guy shot himself on air.<br /><br />It's all been done before. Watch Running Man with Arnold instead. At least it had a semi good ending.<br /><br />*Spoiler* This is an appallingly bad piece of film, together with a ridiculous ending. So she gets shot in the end, is that supposed to make us movie going public feel better after we leave the theater because there was some kind of justice? Don't take my word for it, but I would say this: leave this one alone and watch a test pattern instead, you'll get more quality.

I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.<br /><br />Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.<br /><br />The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.<br /><br />Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.

I heard about this film and knew it wasn't real good. But I started watching the film (on my film-channel)and was interested. This could be a really great, darkly black satire on todays morals in media. The small featurettes on every contestent were good. It build up to something I wouldn't wanna miss. But when the so called show starts everything becomes implausible, cheap and rather silly. Here's where the writer should have added something that would make people think. But instead it's wrapped up and assuming people are this dumb.<br /><br />The ending is so bad I give it a 1. Even if the film starts of promising.

Let's see. In the "St. Elsewhere" finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. "Newhart" ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And "Roseanne" ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very "creative". Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all "real". At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now "Newhart" being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.

Blazing saddles! It's a fight between two estranged brothers (Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard), both of whom can ignite fires mentally; they square off over childhood differences, with dippy love-interest Debra Winger caught in the middle. Director Glenn Gordon Caron (the TV whiz-kid behind "Moonlighting") smothers the darkly-textured comedy in Vince Gilligan's screenplay with a presentation so slick, the movie resembles an entry from an over-enthusiastic film student on a fifteen million-dollar grant. It has the prickly energy of a big commercial feature, but a shapeless style which brings out nothing from the characters except their kooky eccentricities. These aren't even characters, they're plot functions. Barely-released to theaters, the film is a disaster, although strictly as an example of style over substance it does look good. Winger is the only stand-out in a cast which looks truly perplexed. *1/2 from ****

I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.<br /><br />I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???<br /><br />Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10

I can't believe they got the actors and actresses of that caliber to do this movie. That's all I've got to say - the movie speaks for itself!!

Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.<br /><br />Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring. <br /><br />Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.<br /><br />One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.<br /><br />A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime. <br /><br />And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS.

First, it takes a full half hour to get Hackman out of jail and to start doing the job. What a waste of time, we all know Hackman is getting out to do some job for his masters, why waste almost a third of the movie on these sequences. Then Hackman stays in a hotel and the story arc again goes nowhere, simply proving to us that Hackman is under close watch and anything he says or does is know by the masters. Again, another 20 minutes. Then more wasted time showing the reunion with his wife. All of this should have taken 10-15 minutes at most simply as a set-up for the real action, intrigue and plot twists. By the time the real action gets going, I was so bored that I just wanted the movie to end. Hackman is great as usual, and the other actors as well, but this is a dud of the first magnitude.

There are really two sections of this film. Firstly there's the laughable prologue to the film which is so hysterical and cornball that it would almost feel appropriate that the 'The Simpsons' Troy McClure should be doing the narration.<br /><br />Then the rest of the film begins (starting off with a title song which really doesn't fit in with the rest of the film) which, while technically OK, is killed by a vague, inconsistent and unconvincing plot and not just uninteresting characters, but characters that make no sense.<br /><br />This is especially so with Mickey Rooney's Spiventa, who was supposedly in on the plot and part of the 'organisation' the whole time yet what would have happened had Hackman made the seemingly arbitrary decision to take him along when breaking out? In that case he would've been a totally superfluous and unnecessary character, which in the end he still is.<br /><br />The overall problem of the film is that it's totally unwilling to put any detail on who or what is behind this conspiracy. It's as if the filmmakers didn't have the courage to imply that a particular section of society would be capable of creating such an organisation and instead settled on the hope that a lack of explanation would suffice and the audience would form their own conclusions.<br /><br />Put simply, the film fails on all levels.

Stanley Kramer directs an action thriller and leaves out two key things: action and thrills. THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE features Gene Hackman as a convict sprung from prison in order to perform some mysterious task. Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, and Eli Wallach are his operatives --- they presumably work for the government, but that, like most of the movie's plot line, is never made clear. Hackman asks a lot of questions that NEVER get answered so the film goes absolutely nowhere. While it strives to be like NIGHT MOVES and THE PARALLAX VIEW, THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE mixes up ambiguity and mystery with confusion and boredom. The film is extremely well photographed but even that works against it. Kramer's direction is devoid of any style. It's a very sunny movie!<br /><br />The acting is fine with Hackman proving he's pretty much incapable of being bad. Widmark and Wallach are suitably nasty and Albert is well cast as Widmark's cruel lackey. Even the usually obnoxious Mickey Rooney is pretty good as Hackman's sidekick. One oddity however is the casting of Candice Bergen as Hackman's wife. We're told she's done time in prison and she seems to be trying to put on some sort of southern twang. Kramer's idea of making her appear to be trailer trash is to have her wear an ugly brown wig. It's a role better suited for the likes of Valerie Perrine or Susan Tyrell.

What did producer/director Stanley Kramer see in Adam Kennedy's novel and Kennedy's very puzzling screenplay? Were there a few pieces left out on purpose? And what about Gene Hackman, Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, Eli Wallach and Mickey Rooney? What did they see in this very muddled story?<br /><br />And why did Candice Bergen, who gave a horrible performance, accept such a thankless role?<br /><br />The Domino Principle wants to be on the same footing as The Parallax View or The Manchurian Candidate and misses the mark by a very wide margin. A major misfire by Stanley Kramer.

"The Domino Principle" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream "I give up!!!"<br /><br />How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.<br /><br />I hope they spent their money well.

This film is notable for three reasons.<br /><br />First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).<br /><br />Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ("I'll handle this!"), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as "Nazi storm troopers." <br /><br />Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made.

"You're not going to shoot those little creatures. In the first place, they haven't done you any harm. In the second place, they may be radioactive." Ah, the joys of no-budget 50s sci-fi… Yet despite the odd gem like that, Superman and the Mole-Men is pretty uninspiring going even with a lean 58-minute running time. It's beyond cheap (the one shot of Superman flying is an incredibly inept few frames of animation) and pretty dull with it, though it has a surprisingly altruistic message – the mute Mole-Men, diminutive actors with enlarged skulls and fur coats who look more like Mr Mxyzptlk without the hat than subterranean critters, released from their underground world by oil drilling are not malicious, merely misunderstood, and George Reeves' Man of Steel tries to prevent the local small-town mob led by Jeff Corey from killing them. An interesting counterpoint to the paranoia of the day, perhaps, but with little more than good intentions to recommend it.

Back in the 1970s, WPIX ran "The Adventures of Superman" every weekday afternoon for quite a few years. Every once in a while, we'd get a treat when they would preempt neighboring shows to air "Superman and the Mole Men." I always looked forward to those days. Watching it recently, I was surprised at just how bad it really was.<br /><br />It wasn't bad because of the special effects, or lack thereof. True, George Reeves' Superman costume was pretty bad, the edges of the foam padding used to make him look more imposing being plainly visible. And true, the Mole Men's costumes were even worse. What was supposed to be a furry covering wouldn't have fooled a ten year-old, since the zippers, sleeve hems and badly pilling fabric badly tailored into baggy costumes were all painfully obvious. But these were forgivable shortcomings.<br /><br />No, what made it bad were the contrived plot devices. Time and again, Superman failed to do anything to keep the situation from deteriorating. A lynch mob is searching for the creatures? Rather than round up the hysterical crowd or search for the creatures himself, he stands around explaining the dangers of the situation to Lois and the PR man. The creatures are cornered? Again, he stands around watching and talking but doesn't save them until they're shot. Luke Benson, the town's rabble-rouser, shoots at him? Attempted murder to any reasonable person, but Superman releases the man over and over to cause more problems. Superman had quite a few opportunities to nip the problem in the bud, but never once took advantage of them.<br /><br />That said, both George Reeves and Phyllis Coates played their characters well, seemingly instantly comfortable in the roles. If only they had been given a better script to work with.

I just got the UK 4-disc special edition of Superman 1 for about $5. The additional stuff includes the 1951 feature Superman and the Mole-Men. So I slapped it into the DVD player last night, and here are my findings.<br /><br />Some initial disappointment - I hadn't checked, and I think I had it mentally tagged as one of the Kirk Alyn serials. I'm not a huge fan of George Reeves as Superman, and I hadn't seen anything other than the odd clip of Kirk Alyn - but hey ho, never mind.<br /><br />This black and white production runs for less than an hour. It has the feel of a couple of episodes of one of Reeves' early TV series, a two-parter, put together for cinema release, although IMDb says it was filmed as a cinema release in advance of the first TV series. In any event, it's an odd choice for reasons I'll get to later. I'm of an age where I recall TV and movie productions which are limited to one or two locations and sets, so there were no major surprises here. Even so, for a low budget movie, this one is REALLY low budget.<br /><br />The story concerns the small town of Silsby - population 1,430 - which, puzzlingly, is also home to the world's deepest oil well (6 miles). The story opens with the well's foreman hurriedly taking steps to close the well down. This conflicts with the arrival of Metropolis reporters Kent and Lane to report on the well, at the behest of the oil company. As Clark is sniffing out the fact that the drill has emerged into a radioactive cavern 6 miles down, a couple of odd little guys (small in stature, big in head, black in jumpsuit, and bushy in eyebrow) emerge from the capped-off drillshaft, and start mooching round town with puzzled expressions on their faces.<br /><br />A deep breath now, here is the remaining plot of the picture. The little guys scare some kids, so Jeff Corey (playing the town's rampant xenophobe) incites some pals to kill these "creatures". Superman steps in (moderately ineffectually) and catches one of the little guys who has been shot and takes him to the local hospital. Corey's pals burn down the shack the other little fellow has hidden in and assume he is killed, but he escapes and legs it down the shaft. Corey incites a lynch mob (despite the sheriff arresting him) to hang the hospitalised Mole-Man. Superman stops them entering the hospital and takes the injured chappie to the shaft to return him to his fellows. A total of 4 Mole-Men emerge with a weapon of some sort which they fire at Jeff Corey (I call this an Aargh! gun because its sole effect seems to be to make Corey go "Aargh!") and Superman saves him. He immediately changes his ways because of amazement at Superman saving him after the way he has behaved, the Mole-men go back down the shaft. The end.<br /><br />Despite the film only being an hour long, there is an inordinate amount of creeping around, bewareing and pursuing - I have left out all the "Mole-Man 1 creeps from A to B, looking out to make sure no-one is following him" stuff. The Mole-Men are never engaged in any way whatsoever - they have no dialogue - they just turn up, get persecuted, and go back. They do look a little creepy, but they are hardly the bug-eyed monsters that the town's reaction implies.<br /><br />Reeves is quite a good Clark Kent - very much a hard-nosed reporter, much more so than Phyllis Coates' rather indifferent Lois Lane. But he is a terrible, terrible Superman. Not only does he not look the part (at least his hair is dyed black in this, which is an improvement from the rather light hair he sported in some of the TV episodes), the way he plays it is all wrong in my book. I'm sure he was told to "strike the pose" (which Superman does constantly), but someone should have told him that it should be fists on hips, not fists on ribs. And he plays Superman as a rather strict and touchy schoolteacher - he doesn't actually wag his finger in remonstration, but he may as well have done.<br /><br />And Superman does a huge amount of walking around (I say a huge amount - he isn't actually in it all that much), and a bit of running. He takes off and lands a couple of times, but isn't seen in flight at any point. Oh, some bullets bounce off him, and he uses telescopic vision as Clark, but with no accompanying visual effect. In fact, visual effects are conspicuous by their absence, and the few which are present aren't very good.<br /><br />I've tried to consider this effort by reference to the standards of the time: but even by those standards I think it's a pretty threadbare effort. Thankfully, production standards on the TV series were higher, and at least they took the trouble to come up with stories which had a bit more to them.<br /><br />Something of a disappointment - I shan't be watching it again.

This movie was just plain bad. Just about every cop movie cliché is present and accounted for. Bad guy gets away? check. Partner? check. Wacky personality clash with partner? check. Rookie with something to prove? check. Rookie shows up grizzled veteran. check. About the only ones it didn't touch on were idiot shoot themselves in the foot and retirony but I guess they're saving those old chestnuts for Dooley's next outing. Add in the battle of the sexes with Girl Power along with tired old sight gags and banal overdone material like Dooley's prize car getting trashed all the time and you have the recipe for one really bad movie. Avoid this one at all costs.

The Biggest one that bugs the hell out of me is that they say Zues takes DUTCH commands. But she is speaking German to him. The 2 languishes are completely different, its like saying "well he takes French commands" and start talking Spanish.<br /><br />James Belushi gives more the feeling of being a comedy actor not a detective in the slightest. The role just doesn't fit him, even if its mend to be a comedy.<br /><br />To many stereotype/predicable stuff. Typical comment or comebacks.<br /><br />If you don't look at those things i think it could be a nice movie to watch if its ever on TV. But i wouldn't suggesting renting it.

I am very disappointed with "K-911." The original "good" quality of "K-9" doesn't exist any more. This is more like a sitcom! Some of casts from original movie returned and got some of my memory back. The captain of Dooley now loves to hit him like a scene from old comedy show. That was crazy. What's the deal with the change of Police? It seems like they are now LAPD! Not San Diego PD. It is a completely different movie from "

The original was a good movie. I bought it on tape and have watched it several times. And though I know that sequels are not usually as good as the original I certainly wasn't expecting such a bomb. The romance was flat, the sight gags old, the spoken humor just wasn't. This may not have been the worst movie I've ever seen but it comes close.

If you are one of the people who finds "According to Jim" great television comedy, this is going to rock your world. And might I add, kudos for proving that good talent, good writing and a charismatic star are all you really need on any network other than ABC, which prefers to air crap like Jim Belushi's show year after year.<br /><br />"K-911" is a big, steaming, brown, German shepherd-sized "thank you" for all of the geniuses who loved the first movie. It's exactly what fans of that film and the lesser Belushi deserve. Jim's comedic chops and choice in projects are never far behind his ability to butcher a blues standard. Look for him to try to showcase all of his diverse lacks of talent into every project he hurls at the public like a surly zoo chimpanzee.<br /><br />If you enjoy Jim's work, this movie is your reward.

I was expecting a little something from "K-911", I mean it did look like a cute movie that I could get into. I always did love the dog comedy movies. But it looked like it was supposed to be Jame's movie, not Jerry Lee's. The plot was pretty lame and the two love interests really didn't have chemistry to begin with. Not to mention that James seemed to have a total sexist view in the movie despite the fact the writer wasn't going in that direction. James just really ticked me off for more than half the film. The dogs were the true stars and that's pretty sad that they out shined the actors.<br /><br />So, I'm glad it's not just me on IMDb who agrees that this was a pretty stupid movie. But hopefully, James will realize it was his brother Jim who was the talented one, no offense, but not everyone can be their star sibling. Don't you wish Ashlee Simpson would take that same advice? :D <br /><br />3/10

Extremely disappointing film based on the James Michener novel.<br /><br />What was even worse was Marlon Brando's performance. His southern drawl was ridiculous. I found myself laughing when he spoke as he sounded like an elderly southern lady coming home to roost. Brando, so great in previous films, was reduced here to a laughing stock. Tyrone Power, in "Witness for the Prosecution," should have been nominated for best actor instead of Brando here.<br /><br />The film, dealing with racism, dealt with the U.S. government's attempt to avoid marriages between U.S. soldiers and Japanese women.<br /><br />Brando was stone-faced throughout the movie. His moving from anti-these relationships to a pro one occurs when he finds love with an Asian woman. His emotions and talk made it difficult to see how he could espouse such new views.<br /><br />Only the lord knows why Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki received supporting Oscars for their performances. Nothing about either performance was equally impressive. Umeki's appearance on the screen was short and without much of anything being depicted on her part. A better performance in this film was done by Miiko Taka, who did nicely as Brando's love interest. She showed great emotion as the anti-American who found love with the Brando character. Her face was etched with the unhappiness she had for losing her father and brother in World War 11. She realized that her dancing was not her way out of this existence that she was living.<br /><br />Martha Scott went from the Hebrew mother Yochobel in "The Ten Commandments" to the bigoted mother of Brando's love interest at first. Her performance together with the one of Ricardo Montalban was wasted. Patricia Owens, as Brando's first love, showed depth and conviction in her performance.

I didn't expect much from this TV movie. You have to set the bar lower than you would for midget limbo for any TBS movie starring Antonio Sabato Jr. Still, it managed to disappoint, failing even to be a good-bad film.<br /><br />Every scene was by rote, as if someone had cut and pasted scenes from a dozen movies and tv shows dealing with big business conspiracies into the script, leaned back and said, "My work is done". It's all cliche, all predictable, and, even worse, the actors are forced to look like they're taking it seriously, (even when the plot developments are laughable).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Watch "The X-Files" if you're in the mood for paranoia. They handle it better. Also, let anyone know that sitting through "Fatal Error" is just that.

This has the logical consistency of marshmallows filled with ketchup, and the overall aftertaste is just as disgusting. <br /><br />Will be used in the 9th circle of Hell at recreation time. Just plain torture.<br /><br />I would rather choose to watch 90 minutes of my computer going through 5400 blue screens of death than watch this appalling drivel again - ever. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.<br /><br />You know, the good thing about Swiss Cheese is that along with the holes you get some cheese: here it's ONLY holes - and the excitement factor? Well that turns watching paint dry into an adrenalin rush and an Olympic speed sport.<br /><br />My brain hurts from trying to work out who OK'd this drivel, did they think about the premise? (I sincerely hope not, otherwise there is no redemption) the only consolation is they had the pleasure of sitting through the rushes. Made for TV should not be a synonym for: "Sure, let the horses bowels run loose across the living rooms! Our audience are idiots!"<br /><br />I was hooked just to know how it could get any worse. This is not a good sign, folks. <br /><br />Hallmark should be ashamed for releasing it.<br /><br />I should be ashamed for watching it.<br /><br />I am ashamed. I'm off for a long shower.

Robert Wagner is the evil boss of Digicron, a telecommunications company with a virus that kills people.<br /><br />'so you're saying that the software virus has become a real virus that can kill people - that may be medically possible but not possible from my system' <br /><br />'i'm having to write some new virus software of my own to trap it - it may take some time'<br /><br />'but it's not going after software, it's killing people'<br /><br />watch out for the 'i'm into virology' love moment and perhaps first ever film plot to feature death by braille keyboard

I rated this movie a 1 since the plot is so unbelievable unbelievable. Judge for yourself. Be warned, the following will not only give away the plot, but will also spoil your appetite for watching the movie.<br /><br />A computer virus, designed by a frustrated nerd, sends out a code through television screens and computer monitors. When the code - in the form of light - enters the eye it can access the 'electrical system' of your body. What it does is forcing the body cells into excretion of calcium. Within seconds after infection the patient reaches for his neck, develops tunnel vision, his skin will turn white of the calcium, after which he falls and his hand and scull will crack in a cloud of chalk. <br /><br />This virus is very intelligent. When it finds out that a blind computer expert is trying to disassemble the code with a braille output device - operated by hands - the device is set on a very high voltage, which causes severe burning wounds on the skin of the expert's head. The virus also senses aggression against remote controls and the keyboard of an ATM. Fortunately it could be stopped by throwing over outdated desktop pc's in a rack and electrocuting the nerd with his back on a broken computer and his feet in some spilled water.<br /><br />Oh dear...

I have read the novel Reaper of Ben Mezrich a fews years ago and last night I accidentally came to see this adaption.<br /><br />Although it's been years since I read the story the first time, the differences between the novel and the movie are humongous. Very important elements, which made the whole thing plausible are just written out or changed to bad.<br /><br />If the plot sounds interesting to you: go and get the novel. Its much, much, much better.<br /><br />Still 4 out of 10 since it was hard to stop watching because of the great basic plot by Ben Mezrich.

Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.<br /><br />I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.

Despite its stereotypes, virtually 'no-name' cast and an obviously low budget I thought this film was alright; much better than I expected it to be. I was skeptical at first - the idea of a computer virus that can also infect people seemed a little ludicrous to me. But in the end, I thought the film handled the concept well (even if some scenes were a little clichéd).<br /><br />The cast was quite good, and the two leads seemed to take their roles very seriously. I couldn't help thinking, though, that Janine Turner is a bit of a Geena Davis look-a-like. Maybe it's just her face or the make-up, hair and clothes she had in this movie but it just kept nagging at the back of my mind the whole time.<br /><br />While it's not a 'must see' or a great film by any standard, 'Fatal Error' is an entertaining flick that will keep you watching until the end.

Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.<br /><br />The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).<br /><br />Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la "Star Trek" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired "fright factor" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it. <br /><br />One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however.

In some ways, the concept behind the storyline was a rather interesting blend of several typical movie types in an interesting combination. However, no point in this movie was so obvious that it did not deserve lingering close-up shots. I felt as though I had been beat over the head with the so-called mysterious explanation for the disease killing people.<br /><br />The writer appears to have simply lifted clichés from other movies as a substitute for writing lines adapted to actual characters. The actors did not help matters. No chemistry. I guess they were supposed to develop some kind of attraction if only for the reason that such is an essential element of these stories. However, the writers didn't work very hard to develop the chemistry. Sure, they're both attractive, but whether they're attractive to each other seemed to be an open question.<br /><br />The confidence Turner's character shows in Sabato's developed far too quickly and for no particular reason. Sabato's character is supposed to be a discredited doctor who just can't seem to play by the rules. Think of the Jeff Goldblum character in "Independence Day." Usually, that kind of character is supposed to demonstrate some kind of talent or brilliance. Sabato's character does not. He's Cassandra with just the crazy and all the prophetic skills of a magic eight ball. He appears to be right by random chance.<br /><br />The death scenes are comical. Every actor was really trying more than a little to hard to demonstrate the agony inflicted on them. The symptoms looked like bad claymation, sort of like that video from the 80s, Peter Gabriel, I think.

OK, the movie is good but I give it a 1 because the idea of a computer virus becoming an organic virus is pure fairy tale. This kind of crap just adds to those uncomputer savvy moron's paranoid delusions that a computer virus is exactly like an organic virus. First of all, strings of code and dozens of 1s and 0s add up to computer virus. An organic virus is much more complex, even though it's way tinier. Though, it's considered one of the simplest forms in the universe, organic virus's attach burrow into your cells and attach themselves to the RNA, then change your own RNA code. Explain to me how something like that could be processed from a monitor? Maybe the radiation has some effect on the user's cornea that turns your eyeballs into these viruses? I could see that, but obviously, the writer didn't think of that.

I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad! <br /><br />It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.<br /><br />Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!

A somewhat dull made for tv movie which premiered on the TBS cable station. Antonio and Janine run around chasing a killer computer virus and...that's about it. For trivia buffs this will be noted as debuting the same weekend that the real life 'Melissa' virus also made it's debut in e-mail inboxes across the world.

When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth "several thousand million years ago." In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call "Radium X" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.<br /><br />Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10

Unless you are already familiar with the pop stars who star in this film, save yourself the time and stop reading this review after you've reached the end of the next sentence.<br /><br />FORGET YOU EVER STUMBLED UPON THIS FILM AND GO WATCH SOMETHING ELSE.<br /><br />But if you insist on reading, consider: <br /><br />Lame vehicle for Japanese teen idol pretty-boys featuring nonsensical, convoluted "plot" that drags out for an insufferable amount of time until you're ready to scream.<br /><br />Nothing in this film makes sense. It's an endless series of people expressing various emotions, from joy to anger, from happiness to tragedy, FOR NO GOOD REASON. We can obviously see something incredibly "dramatic" is happening, but we just don't GIVE A CRAP WHY 'cause there's no backstory.<br /><br />By the time this film is over, you will be sick and tired of these stupid, lanky, girly stars' faces. You'll be revolted at having spent all this time watching them smile, sneer, cry, look mysterious, be "serious," and any other pointless expression they slap on their faces.<br /><br />That some moron would ever go so far as to refer to this piece of insipid trash as being the "soul" of any of its "actors" should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the trailer and countless adoring comments on this site will not tell you: <br /><br />Only the "converted," mindless minions will like this film, the majority of them teenage girls with a pathological adoration for anything androgynous. Freud would have a field day.<br /><br />Unless you're one of these mindless "fans," stay the hell away from this abomination.

I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.<br /><br />But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.<br /><br />The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.<br /><br />The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.<br /><br />It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.<br /><br />If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD.

Thanks to the BBC for this show. I used to suffer from an inferiority complex, I hated leaving the house, talking to new people and I had an overwhelming sense that people hated me. However after watching one episode of 4 Non Blondes my fortunes started to change. After episode 2 I started applying for new jobs, wearing fashionable clothes and I actually felt talented. When the series had finished I was running the sales department at work, banging a plethora of women and frequently won the karaoke competition down my local. If you ever have a confidence crisis and don't know where to turn then take a trip down to Poundland and pick up the DVD it's only 99p.

Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says "lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.

Here is what happened:<br /><br />1) Head of BBC3 needs to make programmes aimed at different audience to BBC1 and BBC2 to keep licence and job.<br /><br />2) Lenny Henry offers his unfunny friends up.<br /><br />3) Head of BBC3 snaps them up, completely ignoring the fact that they are not funny.<br /><br />Worst of all, it is arguably racist, as all the characters play up to bad stereotypes. If a white person did this kind of thing, there'd be uproar!<br /><br />Trash.

five minutes after watching this i logged on to IMDb to warn all of you out there not to bother with this movie... genre:horror? it had moments of mild suspense and throughout the whole movie i was thinking to myself "somethings gotta happen soon" it did not...when the movie ended i felt so embarrassed for the writer/director i've never been the biggest fan of patrick rea this guy just does not know how to make movies and after watching this sorry excuse of a horror flick i've gone from not been the biggest fan to will not watch another of his works..<br /><br />i was taken in by the plot summary please don't make the same mistake.<br /><br />i gave this movie a 2 for the actors..they were not bad and it wasn't there fault they got such bad direction...

A film with very little positive to say for it.<br /><br />Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.<br /><br />Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen "that" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.<br /><br />It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.<br /><br />And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary – and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.<br /><br />There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson – the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on "medication".<br /><br />With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk "horror" music fails to add atmosphere.<br /><br />Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad.

as an inspiring director myself, this movie was exciting to watch with criticism in mind. Shot with low end digital camera probably with 35mm adapter for DOF. The editing is good acting decent, sound effects aren't too over the top. I would have give it a 7 for an indie film, but the story aren't that interesting. It's more on the drama side, character developments than a horror flick.<br /><br />It's not for those who wants to get spooked startled frightened grossed out, or sit down with popcorn to just enjoy.<br /><br />honestly this movie would be good if we were still in the 50's<br /><br />This movie is about a family who has a dry field, and that is just that.

I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.<br /><br />This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.<br /><br />No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.<br /><br />While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.<br /><br />Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.

This ludicrous and inept film is certainly the most misguided version of "Hamlet" to ever reach the screen. Branagh's approach to the material can only be described as vulgar; going to such lengths as depicting Ophelia in a straight jacket, having Fortinbras' army appear suddenly on the horizon (looking very much like the climax of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") when the palace is apparently guarded only by Francisco (who shouts the very un-Shakespearean cry of "ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack" before being gunned down), and multitudes of star cameos that harken back to the days of Jimmy Cagney's Bottom and Mary Pickford's Kate.<br /><br />Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window.<br /><br />The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. This is never so apparent as in the "How All Occasions Inform Against Me" speech that ends the first half of the nineteen hour film (at least that's how it feels), which attempts to play to a dramatic crescendo along the lines of Gone With The Wind's "I'll never be hungry again." This may serve Branagh's ego, but it does not serve Shakespeare or the speech: when I saw the film in the theater, I leaned over to my companion and snickered "Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet." Branagh saves the funniest and most tasteless moment for last, when he attempts to out-do the Olivier film and its justly celebrated death of Claudius by having Hamlet jump from off a high tower onto the monarch, impaling him with a sword. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny.<br /><br />While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control.

Despite positive reviews and screenings at the international festivals, this movie is not for everyone.<br /><br />The story is very similar to other movies, in which a teenage girl from the family of immigrants needs to overcome many common personal problems of her age, and also to struggle against the pressure of ethnic traditions in her family. She does that by choosing some kind of sport, and with the help of a local boy, that for some reason falls in love with her, she confronts her problems and wins.<br /><br />In Girlfight it's boxing, in Bend it like Beckham it's soccer, and now it's Kung Fu.<br /><br />But Fighter is much inferior product than these two, it was simply embarrassing to watch it. Semra Turan, the "actress" that playing the role of a teenage girl, maybe can do a lot of things, but one thing she can't do is to act. Her presence on the screen is anemic and clumsy, the dramatic situations, in which she tries to show some emotions, are dreadful, her body and facial language are of amateur actress, badly instructed by the director. The rest of the cast is a little better, but they just cannot save this cliché movie with stereotypical characters and shallow plot. Besides a few relatively good moments this movie has nothing new or interesting to offer.<br /><br />Even the kung fu fighting is not a reason to watch this, it's just so boring. The slow motion was really unnecessary, the choreography was basic and lacked the inspiration, and most of the kung fu scenes are just training or standing in all kind of kung fu positions, not actually fighting. Not to mention how ridiculous it looks when a small and skinny girl fights big and muscular boys, and knocks them off their feet. <br /><br />The only reason this movie has been noticed at all is because it's European. It's very easy to publicize this movie - A first martial arts film from Denmark, but don't be fooled, it's not. It's just a drama about stupid teenage girl and her problems, which are, by the way, not really convincing.<br /><br />Bad movie with embarrassing lines, acting and story.

I watched this show and i simply didn't find it funny at all. It might have been the first episode. Lately i realize ABC is playing a lot of stupid shows nowadays and is going down as a station. All the characters on this show are pretty bad actors, but even if they were good the jokes and script are pretty horrible and would still bring the show down. I would say that I believe this show will be cancelled, but seeing as how ABC is doing pretty horrible for quality of shows they are playing, they might just keep this one simply because it's average compared to them.

Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.<br /><br />Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.<br /><br />His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.<br /><br />I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.<br /><br />This guy has a grudge that won't end.<br /><br />I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.<br /><br />The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.<br /><br />Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.<br /><br />Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay.

This show was absolutely terrible. For one George isn't funny, and his kids are snobby little brats. He also treats his mother with no respect. As a Hispanic, I am highly offended by this show and the way the characters are portrayed.<br /><br />Plus the dysfunctional family thing's been done to death. For once, I want to see something original. What makes this show funny when other shows have done it millions of times? I thought ABC would come to its senses and pull this piece of garbage off the air, but sadly, we're going to have to stomach this until they "jump the shark".<br /><br />In my opinion, they already did.

This show is awful. How is George wanting the death of his mother funny? This show is terrible. The parents are obviously horrible and the children should be taken to child services. The daughter is a witch with a b and the son is just a complete brat. George isn't funny, especially when he speaks his loud and obnoxious brand of Spanglish. Ernie is a loser, but at least I've chuckled at him a few times, but mainly at how pathetic he is. George's mother, Benny, in an awful, despicable character. Sure, her husband left her, but how anyone can laugh at the way she treated George as a baby is beyond me.<br /><br />Can someone explain to me how George's head being big is funny? It's not even that big! I've moved on from characters because they're too awful and it would take hours for me to write and I, frankly, don't care enough. I do care enough to tell anyone looking at this and wondering whether or not they want to watch this show, that this show is an abysmal excuse for a sitcom, and is not worth your time.<br /><br />I give it 2 starts, because the wife is extremely attractive.

Seriously, I mean very seriously, when I first started watching the show I thought it was good. But the plots just got worse. The storyline were either too boring or predictable. George isn't always funny, he sometimes acts stupid. His jokes are overdone. His mom is the silliest character of the show. How can a mother treat her own son that way, okay if it was the daughter in law, but this was her own son. I give this show a 4/10 just because the first few shows were a little funny. The actors Constance Marie and Masiela Lusha do a great job. Don't know how these shows get to play for so long. <br /><br />If you're really bored like I was and have nothing else to watch, I'd suggest you watch this.

What has Ireland ever done to film distributers that they seek to represent the country in such a pejorative way? This movie begins like a primer for film students on Irish cinematic cliches: unctuous priests, spitting before handshakes, town square cattle marts, cycling by country meadows to the backdrop of anodyne folk music. Quickly, however, it becomes apparent that the main theme of the film is the big Daddy-O of Irish Cliches - religous strife. It concerns a protestant woman who wants to decide where her Catholic-fathered child is educated, which would seem like a reasonable enough wish, though not to the '50's County Wexford villagers she has to live with. Rather than send them to a Catholic school, she decides to up and leave for Belfast, then Scotland, where a few more cliches are reguritated. While she's there, her father (who looks eerily like George Lucas) and family back home are subjected to a boycott, which turns very nasty. I'm not going to give away the ending, not because I think people should go see this movie, but because it's not very interesting. One of the problems with the film is the central character: we're supposed to sympathise with her but end up instead urging her to get a life. The villagers are presented as bigots whose prejudices should be stood up to, but traumatising your kids seems an innappropriate way to go about it. In addition, it takes on burdens which it staggers igniminiously under when it tries to draw analogies with the current Northern Ireland peace process: the woman is told by her lawyer that she "must lay down preconditions" for her return. The film is allegedly based on a true story but it's themes have been dealt with much more imaginatively, and with less recourse to hackneyed cliches, in the past.

I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like "we want to make sure they are playing for the right team" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library.

I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.

John Candy. Need we say more? He is the main reason you should see this film. Most people don't realize how gifted he was as an actor. Witness him changing from poor slob to horny jerk. Just a simple(subtle) facial change and off we go. There are many great bits in this movie and many really dumb bits. The best moments for me are the KUNG FU U scenes as well as the great moment when John(in a trance) goes up on stage and talks about how much he loves his girlfriend-that is how much he and his genitals love his girlfriend. I'm sure reading this you might think this sequence sounds really crude. It is, but it is also very funny mainly because it is John Candy doing this bit. The story in general is pretty lame and Eugene Levy and Joe Flaherty(both SCTV alumni with Candy) are not given enough to do in the film. Levy has his moments, especially filming the wedding at the end(think Rod Serling) and the great scene when he is talking to his mother on the phone. Overall a good movie if you have had a tough day and need to put your brain on stupid. I give this one 4 out of 10.

This movie appears to have been made by someone with some good ideas but who also never had made a movie before nor had they considered that a script should be edited or even funny. When I saw this film, I saw it for John Candy and assumed, incorrectly, that it would be hilarious. Instead, there was a stupid plot about mind control and so many flat, unfunny moments. And, to top it off, Candy delivered some of the crudest lines I had ever heard up to that time. So, despite a potentially funny cast and story idea, we are left with an amateurish and crude movie that will probably be too stupid for the average adult, though teens will probably find a few laughs. It's really a shame--it could have been so much better. I mean, with Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty and John Candy it SHOULD have been wonderful.

No, not the administration of GWB, the Decider/Strutter/Smirker--but the mini-series "Monarch Cove." Lifetime must have realized what a dog this was because the series was burned off two episodes at a time, most of them broadcast between 11 p.m. Friday nights and 1 a.m. Saturday mornings. As to why I watched the whole thing, I can only plead to weekly sudden convulsive attacks of masochism.<br /><br />Most of the cast are unknowns who are likely to remain unknown. The only two recognizable names are Shirley Jones and Rachel Ward, who turn in the only decent performances (Jones doesn't make it through the entire series--lucky woman). Ward, by the way, is aging quite well since her "Thorn Birds" days.<br /><br />The one main thread to the plot--who murdered the father of the heroine who is wrongly convicted of Dad's murder but is freed after six years in the slammer--is stretched out for so long and concluded so hastily that you won't especially care who dun it. There is a great deal of "steamy" sex, several murders, and all sorts of rude behavior--virtually none of which is either interesting or credible. Most of the cast is not particularly attractive and definitely not talented. The writing and direction is on a par with the cast.<br /><br />If you stick around to the end, the post card is a (very minor)hoot.<br /><br />CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!

This movie is not as good as all the movies of Christ I've ever seen. And I'm quite amazed that in this story Pilate wants to finish Jesus, when the Scriptures (as well the other movies) state differently. It lacks also a very important issue: The Resurrection.. None of the other movies skip this very important part: the faith of all of us Christians lies in this very event. As Paul says in one of his letters "If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is vain". A very impressive scene for me in this movie was seeing on the streets the remains of the palms that were used when Jesus entered Jerusalem. <br /><br />Finally, and in opposition to my Jewish co-commentator, Jesus WAS NOT a myth. And as a matter of fact, he was also a JEW. There are plenty of documents (relgious and secular) that prove the existence of this extraordinary man(or should I said, God become a man) that indeed changed mankind. I strongly advise him(given he is a historian) to read about Flavius Josephus, the most brilliant Jewish commentator of the 1st. Century.

Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role.

The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")

The major fault in this film is that it is impossible to believe any of these people would ever be cast in a professional production of Macbeth. Hearing David Lansbury's soft voice struggling laboriously with the famous "Tomorrow, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow" speech made it impossible to believe anyone would ever consider him for the role. I kept believing therefore that he didn't get the part because he was a lousy actor; not because a bigger name was available. Then when we see portions of the play in rehearsal it is difficult to believe the director is not parodying things with a hopelessly miscast, misdirected travesty of actors who are unable to articulate or even understand the verse and directors who see the play through their own screwball interpretations. Sometimes directors are so anxious to have their films done (and writers think they have the ability to direct their own works)that they settle for less. This appears to be such an example.

I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.<br /><br />There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been "The Vanishing Bride" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.<br /><br />I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo.<br /><br />

LL Cool J performed much better in this movie that I expected! He did a fabulous job acting as a "renegade" cop within a "renegade" department. From the very beginning, he does a great job of building viewer empathy for his character and the predicament he's in. He acts as a sort of "gentle giant" -- a person whose rough exterior can scare anybody, yet whose heart is clearly in the right place from the very start -- and he does an amazing job. He was quite clearly the best character in the movie.<br /><br />This was certainly a performance that will not win Morgan Freeman any awards. After starring in powerhouse films like the Shawshank Redemption this film was certainly a step down. His role in Edison simply did not allow him to show his true talents as an actor -- and in terms of the conglomeration of characters placed him sadly on a back burner. There are so many ways his character (Moses Ashford) could have taken a more pivotal role. That he didn't was disappointing and a true let-down. I was hoping to see more from him in this film.<br /><br />Timberlake ought to have stayed in the music industry. His portrayal of a young journalist was poorly acted and unpersuasive. This movie is a typical action movie that (at least initially) bears some resemblance to corrupt police affairs LA has experienced in the past. Being an action movie, it has its share of shoot-em-up scenes, blood, and guts. These scenes are typically unrealistic and painfully predictable. Watching the beginning of the movie there is very little suspense as to what will happen at the end -- think of what you would typically expect in a good-cops/bad-cops conflict -- and it bears little resemblance to a REAL police shoot-out.<br /><br />What irked me most was the way Timberlake's character behaved during shoot-out scenes. He starts out having guns and not using them. Then when he finally gets around to using one he fires it as if he's been firing a gun his whole life. Then he runs out of bullets and doesn't have a gun -- and 30 seconds later, without moving or anything -- suddenly has 2 more fully loaded guns AND extra ammo?! Little plot errors like this really ruined the movie for me.<br /><br />If what you are looking for is a blatantly fictional plot in a fantasy world where everything turns out okay, then you'll probably love this movie. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what KIND of movie it is as long as it is realistic. Make me believe that the story is true. This story was so obviously fictional in so many aspects that I came away feeling unsatisfied.

Beginning with the poster (featuring only Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey), the entire movie was a fraud. One stereotype after another, this movie was about nothing - or nothing new, at least. After 10-15 minutes, you realize that you've just paid to see Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J recite their way through another cop-flick.<br /><br />Basically, the story is about the corrupt system in some city, all secretly supported by the backbone business and in town, under the watchful eye of some hot-shot politician. The almighty and above-the-law organization is called FRAT and guess what? they've got a kick-ass loony cop shooting and beating at will - suspects, girlfriends, you name it. FRAT cops are corrupt and greedy, so they end up making mistakes that get discovered by a young and talented (!!!) journalist. One hour later, after a series of unbelievably bad-made shooting scenes and more stereotype lines, everything ends happily and we get served the final line : you can't beat the system. Bah! Don't see this waste of film roll. Freeman and Spacey barely have 10 min altogether!

The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.<br /><br />The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.<br /><br />Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.<br /><br />That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing.

Lets enter the world of this movie for a second, so you can better understand the type of movie we are dealing with here.<br /><br />Edison is one of those really stupid movies where the bad guy and his goons have been letting loose 50,000 bullets shooting at the good guy behind walls and pillars, shouting at them, and then finally get to the good guy face to face and instead of killing him......instead of wasting this guy that has caused you SO MUCH grief....instead of just walking up and POP!.....What do you do? The bad guy.....he talks to him. He grabs the good guy and talks to him while holding his gun. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT! SHOOT HIM! SHOOT HIM NOW! But he talks to him anyway. Oh another thing. At the end, a newspaper says "PULITZER PRIZE WINNER STORY RIGHT HERE" or something right above on a front page of a paper, when its like the first time the story is printed. So how in the heezy did someone win a Pulitzer for it that fast? Yea, you know those types of stupid movies? Yea well that's Edison in a nutshell.<br /><br />You get Mr cool Morgan Freeman and shifty eyed tough Kevin Spacey who both phone in their roles completely, LL Cool J who scowls literally every single moment of the movie,while proposing to his girlfriend in a damn night club of all places,and who's last line "Duck" was something from like a lethal weapon movie that was never made... and Justin Timberlake whining and spewing nonsense every time he talks, little cocky bastard.The only bright spot was a crazy Dylan McDermott doing his best "Denzel from Training Day" impression, which was pretty entertaining.<br /><br />Oh yea so whats the movie about? Eh, something about scandals involving the city Edison's fictional special unit police force called "F.R.A.T. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up) which was supposed to be a obvious play off of S.W.A.T. Anyway little journalistic super singer boy Justin Timberflake smells something foul afoot after a murder involving 2 undercover cops from FRAT, and he goes scurrying off looking for a story, gaining his boss' (Freeman) trust along the way while they both unravel something even bigger and sinister than what they both thought. blah blah blah. Its like a bootleg pelican brief meets a halfassed training day.The pacing was slow and off, the script was horrible, and the acting was extremely uninspired. It jumped everywhere without going anywhere. People get put in comas and you forget about them. Everyone in this movie just didn't THINK. Damn what a stupid movie. Its becoming harder to write any sort of review for it because the movie left my brain the second it ended...No lie Basically, do NOT waste your time!