Datasets:

jingjietan

/

imdb-sentiment

like 0

This short film (and the poem which is behind it) is one of the greatest metaphors I've ever seen! <br /><br />The poem is beautiful! It describes exactly the feeling of a person that chases a dream and can't realize it… but it also tells how to fulfil it! I see the "Story of the Cat and the Moon" as one beautiful metaphor to the Human relationships, passion and love. <br /><br />Technically it's done a good work too. In spite of being very simple, the animation, in black and white, gives a tone of allegory to the movie and to its message, but also of tenderness and nostalgia. <br /><br />In addiction, the music also contributes to this poetic feeling. <br /><br />"Nothing else matters! I will wait! She will come when she can, or when she wants to!"

A BUSTER KEATON Silent Short.<br /><br />Poor Buster becomes THE GOAT ("scapegoat") for a dangerous escaped murderer.<br /><br />This is a wonderful, hilarious little film with Keaton at his absolute best. In what is essentially a series of chases, Buster gets to exercise his endlessly inventive imagination. Big Joe Roberts appears as the highly suspicious police chief.<br /><br />Born into a family of Vaudevillian acrobats, Buster Keaton (1895-1966) mastered physical comedy at a very early age. An association with Fatty Arbuckle led to a series of highly imaginative short subjects and classic, silent feature-length films - all from 1920 to 1928. Writer, director, star & stuntman - Buster could do it all and his intuitive genius gave him almost miraculous knowledge as to the intricacies of film making and of what it took to please an audience. More akin to Fairbanks than Chaplin, Buster's films were full of splendid adventure, exciting derring-do and the most dangerous physical stunts imaginable. His theme of a little man against the world, who triumphs through bravery & ingenuity, dominates his films. Through every calamity & disaster, Buster remained the Great Stone Face, a stoic survivor in a universe gone mad.<br /><br />In the late 1920's Buster was betrayed by his manager/brother-in-law and his contract was sold to MGM, which proceeded to nearly destroy his career. Teamed initially with Jimmy Durante and eventually allowed small roles in mediocre comedies, Buster was for 35 years consistently given work far beneath his talent. Finally, before lung cancer took him at age 70, he had the satisfaction of knowing that his classic films were being rediscovered. Now, well past his centenary, Buster Keaton is routinely recognized & appreciated as one of cinema's true authentic geniuses. And he knew how to make people laugh...

It's not too bad a b movie, with Sanders, Barrie, Hale, Cowen, Hamilton, Gargan, Fitzgerald and even Willie Best we could be either with Charlie Chan, Moto, the Falcon, Blackie, Holmes or the Saint etc. In other words you get the chance to spend another hour in the company of some old friends, from plain to urbane, murdering and being murdered - always a pleasure in my book.<br /><br />Barrie's a hard-boiled dame out to avenge and clear her framed and dead father, a police detective by planning and carrying out with her coterie a string of underworld assassinations. Which would surely have had the opposite effect! Sanders joins in the fun simply by dancing in the right club in the right place in the right city at the right time with the right lighting falling on both him and the first killer (at the right time!) and killing him.<br /><br />The story and acting's OK, the only gripe I've got is near the end with the hurried and almost laughable discovery of who the evil genius (Waldeman) was - did they almost forget about his relevance in the plot? That said, a solid entry in the series.

Feisty Dianna Jackson (a winningly spunky performance by gorgeous former "Playboy" Playmate Jeanne Bell) goes to Hong Kong to take out the evil heroin ring that murdered her brother. Dianna's assisted by friendly karate master Joe (amiable Chiquito), faces opposition from undercover narcotics agent Elaine (lovely, buxom blonde babe Pat Anderson), and romances cocky, ruthlessly ambitious Charlie (essayed with supremely arrogant aplomb by Stan Shaw) while plotting her revenge against nefarious drug kingpin Sid (an effectively slimy Ken Metcalfe). Director Cirio H. Santiago, working from a blithely trashy script co-written by none other than Dick Miller (!), crams the lively and eventful 72 minute running time with a plethora of gratuitous distaff nudity and loads of badly staged martial arts fight scenes (Bell is clearly doubled by a squat guy wearing a giant Afro wig!). The definite sleazy highlight occurs when a topless Bell singlehandedly beats up a bunch of thugs in her hotel room. Felipe Sacdalan's raw, grainy, scratched-up cinematography, the clumsy use of strenuous slow motion, the funky-groovin' score, the laughably inept fight choreography, and the surprisingly gruesome conclusion add immensely to the overall scuzzy fun of this deliciously cheesy grindhouse exploitation hoot.

many people have said that this movie was not a good movie, at a horror perspective i agree, it was not very scary, it did have some gruesome ways of torture yes (hooks going where they shouldn't) but not scary. but it was a good movie at a comedic stand-point, i thought it was hilarious, such bad acting from dee snider with his stupid theological questioning and every second word he said came out as "what is____, define______", then the angry mob at his house with one of them holding a sign saying "we're not gonna take it" (which is a song from his band twisted sister. but i think the part that made me laugh the most was the one guy's wife that was dead and dee snider was holding her up and making her dance, when i saw that i broke out in tears... so i would not recommend this for avid horror lovers, but for those who love horror for its comedy i recommend this movie 100%

In what could have been seen as a coup towards the sexual "revolution" (purposefully I use quotations for that word), Jean Eustache wrote and directed The Mother and the Whore as a poetic, damning critique of those who can't seem to get enough love. If there is a message to this film- and I'd hope that the message would come only after the fact of what else this Ben-Hur length feature has to offer- it's that in order to love, honestly, there has to be some level of happiness, of real truth. Is it possible to have two lovers? Some can try, but what is the outcome if no one can really have what they really want, or feel they can even express to say what they want? <br /><br />What is the truth in the relationships that Alexandre (Jean-Pierre Leaud) has with the women around him? He's a twenty-something pseudo-intellectual, not with any seeming job and he lives off of a woman, Marie (Bernadette Lafont) slightly older than him and is usually, if not always, his lover, his last possible love-of-his-life left him, and then right away he picks up a woman he sees on the street, Veronika (Françoise Lebrun), who perhaps reminds him of her. Soon what unfolds is the most subtly torrid love triangle ever put on film, where the psychological strings are pulled with the cruelest words and the slightest of gestures. At first we think it might be all about what will happen to Alexandre, but we're mistaken. The women are so essential to this question of love and sex that they have to be around, talking on and on, for something to sink in.<br /><br />We're told that part of the sexual revolution, in theory if not entirely in practice (perhaps it was, I can't say having not been alive in the period to see it first-hand), was that freedom led to a lack of inhibitions. But Eustache's point, if not entirely message, is that it's practically impossible to have it both ways: you can't have people love you and expect to get the satisfaction of ultimate companionship that arrives with "f***ing", as the characters refer over and over again. <br /><br />The Mother and the Whore's strengths as far as having the theme is expressing this dread beneath the promiscuity, the lack of monogamy, while also stimulating the intellect in the talkiest talk you've ever seen in a movie. At the same time we see a character like Alexandre, who probably loves to hear himself talk whether it's about some movie he saw or something bad from his past, Eustache makes it so that the film itself isn't pretentious- though it could appear to be- but that it's about pretentiousness, what lies beneath those who are covering up for their internal flaws, what they need to use when they're ultimately alone in the morning. <br /><br />If you thought films like Before Sunrise/Sunset were talky relationship flicks, you haven't met this. But as Eustache revels in the dialogs these characters have, sometimes trivial, or 'deep', or sexual, or frank, or occasionally extremely (or in a subdued manner) emotional, it's never, ever uninteresting or boring. On the contrary, for those who can't get enough of a *good* talky film, it's exceptional. While his style doesn't call out to the audaciousness that came with his forerunners in the nouvelle vague a dozen years beforehand, Eustache's new-wave touch is with the characters, and then reverberating on them.<br /><br />This is realism with a spike of attitude, with things at time scathing and sarcastic, crude and without shame in expression. All three of the actors are so glued to their characters that we can't ever perceive them as 'faking' an emotion or going at all into melodrama. It's almost TOO good in naturalistic/realism terms, but for Eustache's material there is no other way around it. Luckily Leaud delivers the crowning chip of his career of the period, and both ladies, particularly Labrun as the "whore" Veronika (a claim she staggeringly refutes in the film's climax of sorts in one unbroken shot). And, as another touch, every so often, the director will dip into a quiet moment of thought, of a character sitting by themselves, listening to a record, and in contemplation or quiet agony. This is probably the biggest influence on Jim Jarmusch, who dedicated his film Broken Flowers to Eustache and has one scene in particular that is lifted completely (and lovingly) in approach from the late Parisian.<br /><br />Sad to say, before I saw Broken Flowers, I never heard of Eustache or this film, and procuring it has become quite a challenge (not available on US DVD, and on VHS so rare it took many months of tracking at various libraries). Not a minute of that time was wasted; the Mother and the Whore is truly beautiful work, one of the best of French relationship dramas, maybe even just one of the most staggeringly lucid I've seen from the country in general. It's complex, it's sweet, it's cold, it's absorbing, and it's very long, perhaps too long. It's also satisfying on the kind of level that I'd compare to Scenes from a Marriage; true revelations about the human condition continue to arise 35 years after each film's release.

Alright this was quite a sensitive little number but I can't help thinking I've seen it before. Reminds me of another VCA film I saw at Poitier called "THE OTHER DAYS OF RUBY RAE" Also had specks of "Welcome to the Dollhouse" and "Ratcatcher" and Lynne Ramsay in it's execution. Which is not to say that they're not tasteful references...just that they feel very modern and very fashionable...which makes me feel like this is closer to advertising (as an approach in style and story) than the work of an original and authentic auteur to come.<br /><br />The cinematography is just...too perfect for my liking. Too coral filter (or charcoal) for my liking...too archly framed 12mm. Therefore the entire impression left me a little distant -- beware of art that proclaims itself too readily! The french (they are a conservative bunch) seemed to buy it as did the jury however... but Cannes short film selection is notoriously conservative compared to it's feature selection although I wonder what's been happening in the last few years.

The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.

I got this movie in a bargain bin, hoping for an amusingly bad flick. Boy was I disappointed. (except for avon.) You see, the movie is indeed horrible, but so horrible, it isn't even laughable. The plot, oh wait, there is no plot. I suppose you could say it's about the main character rising up in the ranks of street fighting. At the end of the movie, the directors decided to either not make any more sense, or, more likely, died and had a monkey finish directing the movie. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE ENDING SPOILED! although the ending doesn't really spoil anything. The main character somehow ends up in a room filled with mirrors, a la Enter The Dragon, and then gets real angry, has stupid flashback, and hits a mirror. The end. Wheeee.<br /><br />The only redeeming factor of this movie was Avon's scene. He's talking to the rival street fighting boss and says something along these lines, completely deadpan: "Do not worry about him anymore sir. I have killed him in a sophisticated manner. I wined him, I dined hm, we went to a disco. We was havin a lot of fun. And then I killed him." at which point the boss says "good work avon. You're number 1." And avon says "Number 1! Alllriiiiight! Alriiight!" The scene continues with avon continuing to say "alllrriiiight!" over and over. The next scene is of a dead Avon floating in a pool. Intelligent? I think not.<br /><br />Lastly, I own the "Homeboy" version of this movie, meaning the title on the box I own is "Homeboy." It shows a huge guy holding a giant gun and screaming. This never happens in the movie. This man is never in the movie. High quality.<br /><br />Note--I am new to this reviewing, but hell yes I am going to keep it up.

I am completely appalled to see that the average rating for this movie is 5.2/10 For what affects me, it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I still keep wondering why I watched it until the end. First of all, the plot is totally hopeless, and the acting truly awful. I think that any totally unknown actress would have been better for the role than Susan Lucci; concerning Mr. Kamar Del's Reyes, I think it would have been a better choice for him to remain in his "Valley of the Dolls". To sum up, it is total waste of time(and i'm trying to stay polite...) to avoid at any cost. My rating is 1 and I still think it is well paid, but since we cannot give a O....

This series has a lot going for it with beautiful footage of the some of the most impressive underwater environments on this planet. Being a staggering five years in the making, one would be hard-pressed to expect any less. I did get the impression that some scenes from the first episode where repeated in the latter ones, which is naturally only a minor gripe.<br /><br />David Attenborough is great as a narrator and comments are informative, leaving enough room for one's imagination, and well spaced out, so that viewers get plenty of time to reflect upon the breathtaking imagery. If you get the opportunity try not to watch a translated version of this series.<br /><br />A definite must-see for anyone interested in the intricacies of our blue continents and easily the best documentary on this subject I've ever seen.

Dear Mr Dante, <br /><br />Dude, seriously... the title of the show is "Masters of Horror". And be that as it may, it is supposed to be an opportunity to show of your horror chops, to show the world why you deserve to be called a "master" of the genre. Appearantly you misunderstood the exercise. Appearantly you thought it was your opportunity (or worse, your duty) to educate the American public on your political beliefs. And your attempt comes off as disgusting, overbearing, and above all preachy.<br /><br />The only reason ANYONE marked your short as a high score is because their political views match yours and they are the type of people that don't mind having that sort of politics shoved down their throat.<br /><br />I, on the other hand, don't give a damn what you believe, they believe, or I believe... I just want such obvious (not subtle) and unfunny (not satire) messages out of my horror. And while there were certainly other "Masters of Horror" that were big time disappointments or where I was just generally confused why that director (william malone?) would be considered a genre "master"... yours fails far beyond the rest for just missing the entire point of the series.<br /><br />So next time... can you please just keep your preachy politics to yourself?

Spoilers in this review! Despite a few highly improbable scenes, including the boys in PE measuring their penises in a contest and the few obligatory teens-trying-to-get-laid vignettes, this movie captures the painful essence of high school in ways that few teen films have ever done. It achieves this by not only showing the trio of friends, Gary, Dave, Rick, as smoking, drinking, ever on the prowl teens, but also dwells on the nature of friendship itself as these three friends have their loyalties tested. This film is a snapshot of the time when childhood ends. For the shy romantic Gary, when he sees the lovely Karen for the first time he falls instantly in love. The awakening emotion in Gary is writ large on the screen, and he proves his love for her by taking her in when she is jilted by her lover. This love for Karen signals the end of Gary's innocence, as the bonds with his two best friends will be tested, and broken, over the course of the story. The confident ladies man, Rick, is the person in high school we all secretly wish we were: handsome, cool, and always has the impossibly beautiful girls in a swoon. Rick turns out to be a cad, but you have to bear in mind that his character is only 17 years old. He panics and makes a bad decision. From Rick's perspective, the story is also about finding the one girl of his dreams, a bad breakup, and then at the end reconciling. The look on Rick's face as Gary walks in and sees Karen kissing Rick, shows that he at last understands that his best friend and he love the same woman. As in real life, you don't bow out because your friend has an unrequited love. This is the tragedy of the film. Rick is no villain, and constantly through the film he reminds Gary and Dave that they're his best friends. The soulful quality of Gary's performance, however, is the heart of the story. Lawrence Monoson is a beautiful loser. He does everything right, his heart's in the right place, and he's consumed by love for Karen. Yet, Karen, in the end, is not moved by Gary's devotion and kindness. Karen represents all the people in the world who take in without giving back, who exist in a vacuum of their own ego and never stop to realize the emotional damage and trauma they inflict on others. This film is brutal in its statements on love and friendship, but that's what makes it unique among teen films. It ceases being a comedy and becomes a hopelessly romantic film, albeit one doomed to a tragic conclusion. Anyone who has ever found the girl of his dreams and did not win her, will understand. The heartrending crushes of high school are every bit as real as the emotional strains of adulthood, and this film will remind you of that in bold strokes. Gary's final reversal, as he drives away with the inscribed locket, is as poignant a moment as any in cinema. One feels, after watching this, that it's really made of two movies. The first part is a silly teen sexploitation film, and once the story begins, it's a strongly affecting drama. A terrific movie. It should also be noted that the soundtrack was prescient in its selection of many rising stars including The Police, The Cars, Devo, Oingo Boingo, The Plimsouls, The Waitresses, Gleaming Spires, and Phil Seymour.

Why oh why don't blockbuster movies simply stick to their selling point? Everyone in the cinema, young and old, was there to see talking animals make jokes, and whilst they did that we were all happy... And then, as with Lost In Space, came the two killer blows - plot and sentiment. Who really cared what happened to the tiger or whether Eddie Murphy made up with his daughter? Not me, that's for sure.

Let's not fool ourselves, okay? We all know that this film was made because of the success of the "Grumpy Old Men" movies. Unlike those, however, this travesty has zero humor and very little heart.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven is the sole shining light to be seen. It breaks my heart that she was finally given the chance to show off her skills to a new generation of moviegoers, only to end up in a piece of dreck such as this. There was a touching scene which featured her being stood up by someone she was falling in love with. Her fine performance was the only quality acting going on in "Out To Sea". Everyone else is just going through the motions. 2/10

This is the movie that I use to judge all other bad movies, and so far there hasn't been anything close.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say is that after watching this I know that I have seen the worst movie I will ever see.

I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the "villain" that they decided they needed to create "conflict." Uh huh.<br /><br />To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.<br /><br />What a waste of the DVD format.

I liked this film a lot. The actors were great, particularly Potente, who is different in every role; Fürmann, who is also able to play anyone; and Loos, who spices things up (she is also a talented singer - she sings the song "My Truth", heard when one character cranks up the stereo in the lab).<br /><br />Anatomie is a good horror flick, which pays attention to its characters. It is also very gory at times, and the set design is innovative. It is too bad they had to make a sequel, which is nowhere near the original.<br /><br />On a side note, two other things definitely worth mentioning. The DVD is not dubbed, which makes for a better experience of the film. Also, make sure to keep watching after the final credits start rolling.

"Stealing Time" actually dates back to 2001 when it was mysteriously titled "Rennie's Landing". Which explains how director Marc Fusco was able to afford this cast of now established television/movie actors in what is obviously an extremely low budget production. About ten minutes into the film you understand why this thing never got a theatrical release after it made the film festival rounds several years ago. <br /><br />Its recent distribution by Franchise Pictures probably reflects a perception that the rising popularity of certain cast members can be milked to recover some of the modest production costs. Although not a great addition to anyone's resume, young actors have done worse things when they were desperately seeking acting work of any kind.<br /><br />Peter Facinelli, Ethan Embry, Scott Foley and Charlotte Ayanna play college friends who do an early "Big Chill" reunion and compare war stories about the failure of reality to measure up to their dreams. <br /><br />Unfortunately nothing else happens, absolutely nothing. Yes Alec (Facinelli) dreams about a liquor store holdup and a bank robbery, which are then "cheaply and lamely" staged to completely inappropriate music. It is the least suspenseful bank job since W.C. Fields was the guard in "The Bank Dick". <br /><br />If anyone can point to any moment in "Stealing Time" where something "actually" happens I would like to know about it, because as far as I can tell, not a thing happens in the whole film. Perhaps Fusco, through incessant visual reflections, is trying to say something profound about taking control of one's life before it is too late. Like "St. Elmo's Fire" the movie is littered with every profound thought ever uttered by a young adult who has left the ivory tower to experience the real world for the first time.<br /><br />I felt Fusco was going for a kind of Howard Hawks Young Professionals in Action "Only Angels Have Wings" motif. Then again, I'm sure I was reading much too much into the film. After all, things actually happen Howard Hawks films.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

"The Beguiled" is one of my favorite Clint Eastwood films, and a departure from his typical early roles. Directed by Don Siegel, with whom Eastwood collaborated on several films, it was made a year before Eastwood's directorial debut with "Play Misty For Me". An alternate title considered for the film was "Pussy-Footing Down At The Old Plantation", which thankfully was not used, otherwise I am sure raunchy jokes about the fact that it takes place at a girls' school would be difficult to avoid. I first saw this movie in one of my college film classes in the mid-1970's, and was immediately taken with it. I only had an old battered VHS tape of it until I recently purchased the widescreen DVD, which also includes the hilarious, awful trailer that makes the film come across as a "Peyton Place" soap opera, and conveys none of the creepiness of the film.<br /><br />Interesting notes: Eastwood and Siegel had to battle with Universal Pictures to keep the original ending, and they won out; and, the film was billed as a standard Eastwood western, which it certainly is not. It is a Gothic tale of deception and horror set in the time of the Civil War, with an underlying tone of eroticism and sexual tension running throughout.<br /><br />I'm not putting any spoilers in this review, and if you want to see the film as it should be seen, then be careful of looking it up on the internet, as spoiler reviews of it do abound.<br /><br />Clint Eastwood portrays John McBurney, a Union soldier who is shot on Confederate ground and discovered by a young girl from a nearby girls' school. She rescues him and takes him back to the school, but instead of notifying the local patrol of his presence so that he will be taken to prison, the headmistress, Miss Martha (Geraldine Page), her assistant Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), their black servant Hallie (Mae Mercer), and the mostly teenage girls take him in, heal him, and fall under his spell. The film sets its tone of creepiness and Gothic horror right from the titles, as it shows real battleground shots from the war, while Eastwood's voice is heard quietly singing a funereal song of the time.<br /><br />The opening scene of his encounter with the little girl who saves him sets the tone of his character, and the tone of the entire movie. To say any more than that would spoil the surprises in that first scene. To say much more about the film itself might ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it...if you are into creepy, Gothic tales, find it and rent it. Eastwood is excellent in the film, and it is interesting to see him in an early role, or any role, where he portrays a character that is for the most part very unsympathetic.<br /><br />Geraldine Page had a plum role in the film as the headmistress, and I cannot imagine another actress of the time being as good in the role; a long shot could have been Piper Laurie, but I don't think Laurie could have embodied the role in the same manner as Geraldine Page.<br /><br />Elizabeth Hartman (whose wonderful performance in the film "A Patch of Blue" as a blind girl who falls in love with Sidney Poiter's character is another high point in her short career) is at her prime here, delicate and masterful at the same time. Unfortunately, her delicacy on film was also a part of her real life; she committed suicide at age 45.<br /><br />I end this review with this observation: one manipulative, lying Yankee man is no match for a houseful of deceptive and libidinous Southern belles.

One of the great things about many of the superb Chinese movies you can find, if you are lucky, in the video stores, is they are very accurate retellings of actual, true stories. Farewell, my Concubine, The Emperor and the Assassin and this movie are perfect examples. The film makers take a true story and work hard to accurately create a movie without compromising the facts for dramatic or commercial convenience -- the hallmark of much Hollywood, and especially Disney films.<br /><br />In this story we follow the later years of an famous local street performer dubbed the King of Masks for his mastery of Sichuan Change Art. Along an having lost his only son many years earlier, he searches to find a male heir to carry on his rare and dying art in a society that forbids females to have such work. Master Wang is sold a son by a slave trader. All is well as he joyfully prepares to pass down his art. But the son eventually is found out to be a girl. From there, the story get very interesting, with a good performance by Master Liang of the Sichuan Opera -- a regional operatic style related to Peking Opera. Fans of Farewell My Concubine should look carefully at Master Liang's portrayal of a male playing the female role in Chinese Opera. It may help them come to understand that the players of these female roles were probably not homosexuals or castrati, but people who have be so psychologically conditioned as to be totally unaware of their own sexuality.

This is the best show ever no matter what you say!I have been watching this show since cycle 1.This show is never boring its wonderful how you see peoples dream come true of being a model.Tyra is trying her best to help young women not be ashamed of their bodies and make them believe that they are beautiful in their own way and that you don't have to feel beautiful by being anorexic.And just as Tyra says on the Tyra show so what if your curvy so what if you have a big round booty so what if you have a big nose so what if your not as beautiful as the people in magazines you are beautiful to her.SO WHAT...............................

Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.<br /><br />Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since.<br /><br />

I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.<br /><br />But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.<br /><br />Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.<br /><br />Another thing is that it's too much "Good Guy v. Bad Guy" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.<br /><br />Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.<br /><br />But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.<br /><br />Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic.

This film gets off to a bad start. An incredibly corny monologue is followed immediately by a brilliantly-done, truly amazing spaceship crash. Then things go downhill again, as you realize that the survivors are all a) bad actors (apart from the docking pilot and the psychopath) and b) almost all of them fit too nicely into the role of monster-fodder. Hell, half of them don't even speak English, preventing the audience from getting to know the characters at all. You feel as if you were watching "Deep Blue Sea" meets "Silence of the Lambs", minus the good bits. And unfortunately, the entire thing tries to hard to be "Crashed on a desert planet with Hannibal Lecter" during the daylight scenes. Vin Diesel is a great actor - but he is no Anthony Hopkins, and he frankly annoys as the smart hyper-cool psycho. There is at least one very good scene involving an unexpected survivor - but apart from that you could just as well have cut out the first thirty minutes or so...<br /><br />But then things take a turn. I can't exactly pinpoint the moment, but soon the movie gets a lot better. It also feels less chopped - the scenes actually begin to follow each other with a consistent narrative, and Vin Diesel becomes much less annoying and soon he is a show-stealer. By the time the first monsters appear, the film is actually quite enjoyable. By the time night falls, it is great. Thrilling, horrifying and exciting. And even the character development of most main characters is well-done. If you can just sit through the poor bits at the start you're in for some GREAT entertainment. <br /><br />Besides, the visuals are eye-candy, and I honestly admit: I love the colour and the tone of this movie. <br /><br />7/10 (could have been 9/10, if only....)

This is just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end.

A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated "T" for tripe.

This movie stars Ben Kingsley as Frank, a hit man for some Russian mobsters based out of Buffalo. He is also a raging alcoholic, and this has caused his job performance to decline. After he falls asleep in his car during a would-be hit, his mob boss uncle sends him to San Francisco, where he is to attend AA meetings and get a job as a mortician's assistant. If you're thinking that this makes absolutely no sense, you're not alone.<br /><br />It gets worse. Well, it actually gets better, but not before getting much, much worse. Frank suddenly becomes a master mortician in spite of a complete lack of training, but his reactions with the people in the funeral home and the AA meetings are interesting. The viewer starts to root for him as they notice positive changes in his life. Luke Wilson is a welcome addition as Frank's sponsor, although he is given almost nothing to do (his character does tell us he is gay, but this ends up having no significance whatsoever). The movie plunges headlong into idiocy with the introduction of the Tea Leoni character. She is completely unrealistic, and her role as a love interest to Frank flounders, as the two actors have no chemistry together. Around the time she comes into the picture, Frank becomes much less engrossing as a character. His characterization is seemingly random; there is no consistency in his behavior. The comedy is low-key and only intermittently funny, especially disappointing considering the comedic pedigree of the cast.<br /><br />Problems abound in this one. Kingsley's accent is terrible and inconsistent. It alternates between Italian, Russian, and Hispanic. Throughout the course of the movie, Frank tells numerous people he is a hit man (including an entire AA group), but nobody seems to care, or wants to do anything about it. The movie relies on cliché scenes to carry it through its final act, most notably when Leoni's insufferable character chases Frank down at the airport, just when he is about to board a flight back to Buffalo.<br /><br />Though it has a strong premise and an interesting first half-hour, the movie quickly becomes a total disaster and devolves into complete nonsense. At the end of the film, Frank celebrates one year of sobriety. I hope to celebrate many, many years of not having seen "You Kill Me". <br /><br />My Grade: D+

After all the hype I had heard about the Jane Austin novel and different film versions of the book I found myself very disappointed with the movie. I had expected a classic drama but that was not the case. First of all let me preface my review with the fact that I love old movies, particularly mysteries and dramas, but not female oriented movies. This probably makes a huge difference, so take my review with a large grain of salt. I thought the acting was a bit over the top, but that is very common in movies of this era. June Allyson was good as Jo but I found every sister to be stereotypical and form driven. There were no surprises or overly dramatic moments. I hate writing negative reviews, but the movie left me very cold. It has always been my intention to read the book, but after this that seem unlikely. The only warming story line was between the old gentlemen and the youngest sister, that was a very welcome bright spot in an otherwise disappointing viewing experience. Again there are others who love this movie, I'm just not one of them.

Based on the true story of two young Americans who sold national secrets to the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War, "Falcon And The Snowman" wants to be both suspenseful and philosophical, and winds up falling short in both departments. It's less le Carré than who cares.<br /><br />Timothy Hutton stars as Christopher Boyce, a former seminarian who, disgusted by Watergate and the middle-class values around him, is probably the wrong guy to be hired by a company running spy satellites for the CIA. Sean Penn plays his drug-dealing pal, Daulton Lee, who makes himself Boyce's courier, delivering secret files to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. An offbeat synth-jazz score, lack of sympathy or emotional attachment for anyone, and lots of scenes of guys getting angry in rooms all combine to deaden what could have a decent moral-dilemma thriller.<br /><br />It's really Penn's movie despite the second billing; his character gets to talk turkey with the Russians while Hutton plays with his pet falcon. Hutton looks like they woke him up five minutes before they called "action". With Penn, it's a crapshoot whether you get a brilliant performance or an over-the-top one. Here, it's a bit of both, but more the latter, especially in the second half when Lee switches from coke to heroin. He screeches. He snorts. He crashes Russian embassy parties. He gets pummeled with telephone books. He spits at himself in a mirror, a big goober he must have been saving for a paparazzi. "I don't know who my friends are anymore!" he cries out. It's exhausting to just watch him.<br /><br />Penn seems to have modeled Lee somewhat on Dustin Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo from "Midnight Cowboy", complete with overly nasal line readings and constant eye shifting. John Schlesinger directed this film as well as "Midnight Cowboy", but he seems to have had another Hoffman film in mind, "The Graduate", throwing up scene after scene of Boyce and Lee poolside, trying to decide how to live their lives in their gilded cage. Too bad no one suggested plastics.<br /><br />From the opening shots, news footage of American decline juxtaposed with Boyce and his bird, "Falcon" makes clear it is a message movie, though the message itself is far from clear, probably because the characters never come into focus. Is Boyce supposed to be an idealist? Or is he just a mercenary? Hutton and Schlesinger don't seem to know, which makes it harder for us. Meanwhile, opportunities to establish some suspense, like Boyce stealing documents from the top secret "Black Vault" where he works or Lee playing games with the Russians, are interrupted by jump cuts to scenes of the pair with their families and friends. It's the normalcy of the story that Schlesinger finds interesting, but it's the least interesting aspect for us.<br /><br />Good stuff: It's interesting to see a film that works the 1970s vibe so early as this one, referencing Maria Muldaur and Tang. Dorian Harewood, memorable in "Full Metal Jacket", has a nice turn as Boyce's paranoid colleague Gene, who shows Boyce how to make margaritas with a shredder but has some serious 'Nam issues beneath his partying exterior. Macon McCalman is also fine in a totally different way as the no-nonsense boss who gives Boyce his high-security job. David Suchet as the Russian embassy official who deals with Lee makes for a fascinating blend of menace and amiability.<br /><br />But "Falcon And The Snowman" stands or falls on the the question of the two title characters, and neither the actors nor Schlesinger are able to mine much in the way of answers. Worse, after more than two hours in their alternately feral and catatonic company, you don't really want answers. You just want those credits to roll.

I read about this film on-line and after seeing the generally positive reviews it has received, and viewing the trailer, I decided to check it out for myself. What a disappointment! It starts out well enough. the opening scene was actually pretty tense, but from there it's all downhill. I can see that the filmmakers were trying to do something different with this movie, but by doing so, they took all the enjoyment out of watching it. Those choices combined with the "C.S.I" editing, use of music and montage, lack of suspense, scares, or humor really drag this film down. There's too much foreshadowing and to many "subtle" clues, so when the first twist arrives early on, you already know how the movie is going to end. I gave the movie three stars because I think the cast did a good job, other than that I can't recommend this movie.

I remember when this came out a lot of kids were nuts about it. I guess I was a bit too old to get all excited and I was a fan of real martial arts films and always found this a bit cheesy.<br /><br />In the early 90's we were swamped with programs such as this making kids feel like they could fight and be a power ranger or an equal to these kids on 3 Ninjas. I think eventually parents and film makers alike got sick of it because all we had in reality was abunch of kids going around punching and hitting everyone.<br /><br />Many kids movies have some big point they're trying to make and its nice for your kids to watch and get the message, this one doesn't have any message at all...it just exploits a million difference things in less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />The movie has no great visual qualities but would one expect it to? The acting is pretty bad. Victor Wong is a cool actor but it was embarrassing to see him here.. The short, fat, gimped eyed old fart as a powerful ninja that was just hilarious. The kids over acted way too much and the youngest ninja Tum Tum was maybe the worst kid actor I have ever seen.<br /><br />The movie has a plot that anyone knows before they even read the review. 3 ninjas...yea you know they're gonna fight a bunch of bad guys and win obviously... Need I say more. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone.<br /><br />With all that said KIDS WILL LOVE IT. This movie is aimed at kids and only children could enjoy it. If you don't mind your kid seeing movies about kids fighting this is a good movie to let them see. If you don't mind allowing your children to see complete garbage that has nothing to do with real martial arts, real acting or reality period then you have found a movie for your kids... I say kids because I think even the girls will like it... I recall all the girls having a crush on Rocky.<br /><br />2 out of 10 stars because I think you can make a movie for kids and still make it enjoyable for adults..this movie failed big time at that.. It is beyond cheesy and nothing original or unique and I would not allow a child of mine to watch it... Kung Fu the TV series is on DVD and there's tons of great Shaw Brothers films out there...Why not show your children things that will really entertain them and not make them dumb along the way, perhaps even teach them some moves and not just how to kick a man between the legs as grandpa did on 3 Ninjas...no no no...never kick a man between the legs ...never .. thats so unninja like.

I can't really criticize this film. It is literally the first film I ever remember seeing and lead to a lifelong love of science fiction and horror films and prehistoric animals. Fortunately, seeing it again years later, it held up fairly well. Rod Cameron plays a big game hunter whose last safari was wiped out by mammoths. No one believes him, including his best friend, played by Cesar Romero, whose brother was among those killed. And Rod Cameron was the only survivor. The film was shot in India and has some good scenery. The acting is on a high level. I don't believe Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero and Marie Winsor ever turned in a bad performance. The mammoths, when they finally arrive are fairly effective. The ending also has an unusual twist, particularly for a 1950's science fiction film. Definitely worth seeing.

Now I've seen it all. Just when I thought it couldn't get any more pathetic and cheesy than "Woodchipper Massacre," just when I thought dialogue and acting couldn't get worse than "Nail Gun Massacre," just when I thought "Don't Go In The Woods" would retain its title as Lousiest Slasher Film Ever, along comes "THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY!" Somehow, this cheap, wretched manure manages to avoid lewdness, but it remains terrible! I couldn't believe my eyes--for once I can't complain about excessive (or in this case, any) nudity in a slasher film, but it still managed to make me crimson with embarrassment for renting it. Never before have I seen such horrible acting, dialect, direction, writing,....I could go on forever with this list! Here's a quick run-down:<br /><br />A mental patient somehow escapes from the loony bin, dresses up like a surgeon, somehow finds out where his doctor lives, and breaks in while the doctor's daughter is having friends over for the night. Then begins the most stupid killing spree (ripped off from other movies such as "Slumber Party Massacre" and Halloween") this side of the universe. The characters have negative IQs, which suggests they are not human. Then again, I guess they are not, since they have the tendency to bleed Kool-Aid when they get cut, as the slasher likes to show use when he holds up his scapel to the camera in WAY too many scenes. It is only 80 minutes...how many times must we look at that scapel like that before it consumes the whole movie?...which I suppose wouldn't be all that bad of an idea in this case! There is one moment where I thought maybe, just maybe, the director would make it interesting (a second killer was added), but alas! It was not to be! And then to insult even further, there is a stupid super cop-out sub-ending and an even stupider final conclusion. That probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I would hate to give away the dumbest few scenes in movie history to those two or three fools (like me) dumb enough to rent this sewage.<br /><br />I sure hope that, by writing this, I have saved 80 minutes of someone's life. I get on my hands and knees to beg anyone still thinking about renting this: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T! This is a fan of the slasher genre talking; I know what is good for you! The only real victims in this rattlebrained, asinine nonsense are the poor morons that have sat through the whole toilet tank! Zanatos's score...since there is no negative point scale, I have to give it a 1, but a below-average 1 at that. Avoid it at all costs....please!!!!

I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.<br /><br />Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.<br /><br />It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.<br /><br />The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.<br /><br />

So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.<br /><br />There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.<br /><br />It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.<br /><br />4 out of 10, kids.

After a long run in the West End this charming film re-cast Margaret Rutherford as the Headmistress 'Miss Whitchurch' in this financially successful adaptation made in 1950.<br /><br />All interior shots took place at Riverside studios in Hammersmith, London. The exterior scenes were filmed on location at a public girl's school near Liss in Hampshire. During the 12 - week shoot both Margaret Rutherford and Joyce Grenfell were staying in a hotel nearby and would often visit the school during the evenings where they would happily enjoy the company of the real school mistresses.<br /><br />Although the film's script contains only two original lines from the original play the leads and supporting actors are in fine form and you can only feel sympathetic for their predicament especially in the final scenes.

Lauren Bacall and Charles Boyer do not provide the right chemistry here in this 1945 film.<br /><br />There is a good story here about the Axis trying to obtain coal to use for the upcoming war. Unfortunately, this part of the story is not emphasized. Instead, we deal with a supposedly bungling Boyer. By the way, Bacall is as British as Vladimir Putin.<br /><br />The real acting kudos goes to veteran Oscar winner Katina Paxinou. As was the case with her memorable Pilar in the 1943 Oscar winner, "For Whom the Bell Tolls," Paxinou again plays a Spanish revolutionary but this time she is a double-crossing counter-spy for the pro-Franco group. She is quite a vicious character here;especially, when she throws a 14 year old child out the window. She believed that Boyer had given the child important material to hide.

This is an engrossing woman's drama that men can enjoy. The plot follows a young woman (Hope Lange) who goes to work for a publisher after college. We can forgive her jump in position from secretary to editor (hey, it's Hollywood) and a few other flaws. Here is one of the few films in which once big time producer Robert Evans (here, beautifully depicting a rat with women) appears. It also features a mature Joan Crawford and terrific supporting cast. Check it out.

What can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.<br /><br />The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.<br /><br />Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got there.

The title of this obscure and (almost righteously) forgotten 80's slasher inevitably reminds me of The Cure's mega-smash-monster hit song with the same title, hence a piece of the lyrics in the title-section of this user comment. Also, I didn't have anything else to say that was useful, anyway. But hey, "The Forest" isn't totally hopeless and not even *that* bad, actually. If nothing else, at least it obeys the, admittedly unwritten, first rule of 80's slasher: kill someone within the first 10 minutes of playtime. Sure you've heard about the basic premise of this film a dozen times before, but don't let that discourage you from watching it, as "The Forest" has a couple of things more to offer than just an appealingly sinister cover image. It's actually a bit of an atypical 80's slasher! The main characters aren't ordinary brainless teenagers and the script has solid ambitions towards supernaturalism. The concept isn't always successful, let alone plausible, but it's more than interesting enough to hold your attention and there are even are a couple of surprisingly strong moments of tension and plot twists to enjoy. Two married couples decide to go camping in the most isolated woods of California, but due to a stupid bet the wives travel separately from their husbands. Barely set up for the night, they receive uncanny visits from a mother looking for her two children, the children themselves and finally the father who's out hunting for human flesh. The demented family may be real or imaginary, but the women are definitely in danger and by the time their husbands arrive, they have already vanished. The men too encounter the family, and they find out more about the slightly dysfunction background. "The Forest" is a weird and unusual film, to say the least. It's not exactly a masterpiece of plotting, but the thoroughly strange atmosphere will certainly appeal to open-minded fans of 80's horror. The murders are fairly gruesome and will-filmed, including a slit throat and a painful saw-massacre, and the filming locations are stunningly beautiful. The more you contemplate about the story and its abrupt twists, the less it makes any sense, so my advice would just be to enjoy this odd viewing experience for as long as it lasts and not a minute longer. The acting performances are just above average, the music is okay and at least director Donald Jones (also responsible for the 70's exploitation-sickie "Schoolgirls in Chains") tried to be a little more creative that the majority of 80's horror films. Too bad it ultimately fails.

The Vietnam War era is certainly far before my time, but it has always interested me, and I have seen many films about it. All of the others I'd seen had dealt strictly with the front-line of battle. When I read a description of "The War At Home," I found the concept intriguing. No Vietnam War movie I'd ever heard of talked about what happens to a soldier once the fighting is over with. <br /><br />One night, while flipping through channels, the movie aired on The Sundance Channel. I set down the remote and settled back to watch it. I did not move from my seat during the entire two hours; it's one of those movies that keeps you very interested because there is no way to predict what is going to happen next. <br /><br />This movie made me a huge fan of Emilio Estevez. I had enjoyed him very much as Billy the Kid in the "Young Guns" movies, but I never saw anything he did afterward. Emilio proved to be very talented at writing and directing as well as acting. <br /><br />The pacing of the movie is done extremely well. I am hard-pressed to think of a point where it drags. <br /><br />What amazes me is that it didn't get an Oscar or any real recognition when it came out. It is a dramatic story about parents trying to cope with the fact that their son is not who he used to be and probably will never be as they remembered him again. Definitely worth seeing.

I first saw this film on cable in the 80's and it rocked me to the core. It showed up again on TV about six months ago.<br /><br />Filmed on location, the black and white cinematography graphically portrays 1950's New York as the gritty "urban jungle" at a time when there was far more industry and port activity in the city, particularly in Manhattan.<br /><br />John Cassavetes always brought a special intensity to his acting, and is magnificent in the role of the army dodger. His brief 1959 TV series "Johnny Staccato" is also a joy to watch.<br /><br />Sidney Poitier and (later in the film) Ruby Dee bring freshness and vitality to their roles. But it is Jack Warden's superb acting as the vicious, brutal shift boss that grabbed my attention. To get an idea of Warden's versatility, watch this film, then check out a 1962 episode of the TV series "Naked City" entitled "Specter of the Rose Street Gang (available on video)." If you are a fan of film noir, this is a must see. Enjoy!

Moonwalker by Michael Jackson is a real adventure film for the whole family!<br /><br />Before the real story of the movie starts, we get a performance of the Bad Tour (Man In The Mirror), and it kicks off a great movie. After that we get a kind of a collage of Michael carrier, as it was until Moonwalker came out in 1988. After a few Music Videos also (Speed Demon, Leave Me Alone, etc.) the story starts.<br /><br />The plot is basically that Michael and his 3 friends (who are kids) are being chased by the bad guy of the story "Mr. Big", because they discovered his evil plans of getting children all over the world hocked on drugs. During the chase we see fantastic segments, fx. Michaels video for Smooth Criminal, which is absolutely fantastic with its dance sequences, etc. But then one of the kids get kidnapped by Mr. Big, and Michael will haft to save her before she gets a drug addict.<br /><br />During the movie we see special effects not only amazing for those days standards, but also impressive today. For instance, see Michael turning in to a robot/spaceship in order to protect his friends! It's so cool!<br /><br />The movie ends with a performance of Come Together (later published in Michaels double-album of HIStory), and you leave the movie with a magic feeling. Amazing!<br /><br />I recommend this for every family who wants to spend a nice night together with candy and popcorn in front of the TV. And now some parents might stand up and say: "But Michael Jackson is an alleged child abuser!" Yeah, he is indeed, but, come on, we all know it isn't true! Wait and see..

This is apparently one of Shemp's first shorts with the Stooges. (This excludes his much earlier vaudeville years with the team). But the threesome's comedic timing is at its honed best here. Aside from the intense slapstick scenes, there are others more subtle, but just as funny. Watch Larry when Shemp asks him to look at the camera for a snapshot. Or watch the real object prompting Moe's exclamation, "Oh...highly polished mahogany!"<br /><br />Emil Sitka is at his bewildered goofiest. And the goon may look scary, but he's somehow funny. He seems as frustrated and perplexed with the Stooges as are "regular" people in other shorts.<br /><br />For Shemp aficionados, this is a must have episode. It won't disappoint.

Story-wise this isn't among the best or most cleverly written Columbo movie but the movie is extremely well made, with excellent directing and truly fine acting.<br /><br />Especially the acting within this movie attracts the attention. Director Nicholas Colasanto did a great job with the actors in the movie. Appereantly he allowed Peter Falk and John Cassavetes lots of space to play with, also since both are being credited on here as uncredited directors of this movie. Must be part of his directing style to allow the actors this much room. It works out extremely well for this movie. Perhaps he did this because Colasanto himself also used to work as an actor. He is perhaps best known for playing the role of Coach in the hit-series "Cheers", from the very start of it in 1982 until his death in 1985.<br /><br />So Peter Falk seems better than ever before in his role as Lt. Columbo. Also veteran actor John Cassavetes does a real great job as the movie its murderer and is a good match for the lieutenant. Beside them, the movie also features Myrna Loy. A big star from the silent movie era and also Pat Morita, in a small early role.<br /><br />But not just the acting-directing within the movie is real good. Visually and technically it's also a really great made movie, with slow long shots, without the use of any cuts. Also obviously the reason why this movie is longer than most Columbo movies. It really takes its time to set up things and tell its story. The movie also features a couple of nice artistic and experimental kind of shots. Of course all really fitting for the '70's.<br /><br />But like I said before, story-wise this just isn't among the best Columbo movies. Also the clues being left out for the lieutenant are a bit too obvious this time. It makes the murderer come across as a bit dumb, like he didn't thought his plan over good enough, while the character obviously is an intelligent man. Columbo this time also tries to irritate the suspect and other characters a bit more than he usually tries to do, in order to solve the crime. This and Peter Falk's different acting approach are a reason why his character might come across as different than he does in other Columbo movies. But different does not mean worse in this case.<br /><br />The movie also features a quite good musical score by Richard DeBenedictis, who after this became sort of the steady composer for the Columbo movies. <br /><br />A great Columbo movie to watch!<br /><br />8/10

There are a select few cartoon films where animals or something "not human" is portraying human beings and I think that this film is one of them. Apart from a few points of the plot and the characters - this film could be changed with all people rather than mainly animals. Although - it's good someone did not - I feel the cats are jolly good in this film portraying humans! :-)<br /><br />This film also focuses on quite a lot of adult issues - which is rather odd for a Disney film. It mentions alcohol*, shows a dog teaching another dog how to attack "tresspassing" humans and it shows a male cat called (Abraham Delacy Gieuseppe Casi Thomas) O' Malley, fancying a female cat, in a surprisingly human and adult way.<br /><br />As a cartoon film - or just a film in general, I feel this is pretty good quality - the storyline and characters are especially good. The film (in general) is set in France and you meet a family of cats - the mother Duchess and her kittens Marie, Toulouse and Berlioz. You also meet the kind (rich) old woman who adores the cats, the butler Edgar and an old man (who has CLEARLY lost his marbles) called George. The kind old woman discusses her will with George and Edgar overhears that what he receives from the will he will have after the cats have it. He is INCREDIBLY cross with this - and has an evil scheme in mind...<br /><br />A very cute film for every age - enjoy "Aristocats"!<br /><br />*Not including "Basil the Great Mouse Detective" and a few others maybe which I cannot think of at the moment.

An Insomniac's Nightmare was an incredibly interesting, well-made film. I loved the way it just throws you into the main character's subconscious without coddling the viewer...the acting was top notch - honestly, I would watch Dominic Monaghan read the phone book! - but everyone else, especially the young girl, was great as well. I was very impressed by the look of the film, too. Usually, "independent films" have a grainy, I-shot-this-on-my-camcorder look to them, but this director knows what she's doing. The lighting, the cinematography...quality work. I'm looking forward to a feature-length work from Tess Nanavati!

Lets be realistic here. This is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. My Wife and Kids showed real promise in its first season and only went down hill after that. It is so bad that words do not describe. The acting and writing are so dreadful on a consistent basis I wonder if Damon Wayans was producing such an atrocious show on purpose. From top to bottom every performance is ridiculous. Damon Wayans completely phones it in and George Gore II is so horrible I cringe at every over-acted line. Can anyone really watch this show and find it to be entertaining let alone funny? Please I implore you. Do not watch this show. As soon as TV affiliates stop picking this up in syndication we can finally be rid of this absolute garbage.

The key scene in Rodrigo Garcia's "Nine Lives" comes when Sissy Spacek, hidden away in a hotel room where she is carrying on an affair with Aiden Quinn, find a nature documentary on television, at which point Quinn notes the contrivance of such things--disparate footage is edited into one scene, predators and preys are thrown together in order to capture the moment--all to force connections where none actually exist. Characters in the nine shorts that make up this film occasionally spill over into each others stories, but none of them ever seem to really connect. A woman preparing for a violent confrontation with her abusive father is later seen working in a hospital room where another woman is preparing for a mastectomy. A man who runs into an old girlfriend in a supermarket and sees how his life should have been later hosts, with his current wife, a dinner party for an unhappy couple. Garcia arranges some of his characters in front of each other, but none of the subsequent stories ever really build on what came before.<br /><br />Garcia's first film, the wonderful, overlooked "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her," also had a short-story structure and overlapping characters, but there were fewer of them and they had a lot more room to breathe and grow. The gimmicky premise of "Nine Lives," that each of its nine stories is told in a single, unbroken take in real time, never allows the film to build up any real dramatic tension or momentum. It's also a fairly visually ugly movie. Interior shots are often murky and hard to watch, while other scenes--particularly one where a girl walks back and forth between rooms to talk to her uncommunicative parents--are rendered annoying by the camera-work. Given that this is Garcia's third film and that he has a respectable history of directing for television, the direction in this film is rather surprisingly amateurish. Like fellow filmmaker-child-of-a-great-writer Rebecca Miller, Garcia (son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is focused on the writing and character aspects of his films often to the detriment of the film-making ones.<br /><br />Individual scenes are touching and even affecting. I did like Jason Issacs kissing Robin Wright Penn's pregnant belly. And Joe Mantegna whispering lovingly to his wife as she slips into pre-surgery sedation. And Sissy Spacek stealing a few happy moments away from her life with Aiden Quinn before brought back to it with a phone call from her daughter. But the film (unlike "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her") feels more like an exercise than actual drama. We are just watching people act.

The film concerns a classic theme. In fact it concerns the theme exploited by Batman, from beginning to end, but in real data and details. The mayor of New York, appreciated and very diligent and dynamic, in order to get some project through slightly faster than normal, yields to some pressure from some private business contractors about a criminal drug dealer who should have been sent and kept in prison and he pressurizes the judge in his turn to set him free on probation in spite of a negative probation report that disappears but is not destroyed, be it only because of the political value it represents. And what was to happen happens and a few people, including a black schoolboy is killed in a shoot out between a police detective and that criminal. The city may explode because of it: racial tension because of the black school boy and social tension because of the insecurity such criminals free to roam around and go on with their criminal activities represent to the public. Unluckily the film does not show that tension very well and follows the investigation of the first deputy mayor who wants to find out the truth and does find it out. But along the way a few witnesses are killed, and those who had played some role in the whole business are forced to retire (the judge), to end their career and life (the contractor or the contractor's go between), a public officer who was ready to deliver the disappeared probation report, and some shady character after he provides some crucial information. The mayor himself retires and takes a long vacation; But the main interest of the film is in the exploration of the contortions the mayor is doing to cover up the problem and the contortions he remembers having done in the past that led to the mistake about this probation case. The political philosophy that nothing is pure white or pure black and that everything is grey which is never comfortable to decision makers is invoked as an excuse for wrong but profitable decisions. We are not speaking of necessary compromises to get to some consensus in some domains that are crucial to public interest. We are speaking of considering as less important to take a bad decision about some petty or supposedly petty criminal than some infrastructure or economic project in the city. That is not typical of New York. That is true in any mayoral office. It is just more significant in quantity and in quality in a big metropolitan area like New York and of course in a city or country where police departments are municipal and are controlled by political imperatives. The young deputy mayor is thus pushing the old mayor out of the way, and he derails his ambition to be the governor of New York in order to become the president of the US. The mayor is perfect due to the embodiment Al Pacino offers us since he is able to express ten minutes of dialogue with one facial expression that makes the whole dialogue useless. I find the end slightly mushy with the ex-deputy mayor campaigning in his own name. That seems to mean that he was so attached to justice because he saw his chance to push the mayor out of his own way. Hence he is not better than all the others, just still too young in his ambition.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

This movie almost has everything. The action is cool, it's funny, 2 great leading men and a truly nasty villain that I REALLY hated. Not a lot of films have BAD bad guys. Just mainly comic book villains. He really does deserve a might ass kicking.<br /><br />Jake Scott really does have his fathers talent for knowing how to make great visuals. The direction is faultless and has an irresistible lighthearted feel. I don't usually like films set in the old days but this I liked a lot because it makes a point of boring like so many other period films are (Sense and Sensibility, Age of Innocence and the absolute worst...Lady and the Duke). This will restore your faith. Thanx mostly to Craig Armstrong's amazing score. The music is both atmospheric and ethereal and in scenes of action it is very exciting.<br /><br />The DVD is in Dolby 5.1 and has a very grainy and muddy looking 2.35:1 anamorphic picture.

I've become a big fan of the Carpenters, and I didn't really enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I feel it focused far too much on her anorexia and didn't let her true personality shine through. I wasn't overly fond of Cynthia Gibb's portrayal; especially knowing she decided Karen's anorexia was suicide, which it clearly wasn't. Although her family was not big on hugs and kisses, I thought the movie portrayed Agnes (their mother) as being terrible.<br /><br />I did find a few scenes to be harrowing in a way, such as where she sees herself in a mirror that seems to distort her and make her look heavier; I thought the metaphor (so-to-speak) there was rather effective. When the family is playing pool and discussing her divorce and she breaks down and Richard is shocked when he comforts her and feels her frail body was pretty moving (which is probably the wrong word) as well.<br /><br />Overall, I feel they needed to bring out her more bubbly, quirky side--her genuine personality. Even as the focus of the film, there really wasn't a point that caused one to understand what would lead her to anorexia (though of course no one can really know), and almost made it seem baseless. The film was more poor-singer-with-anorexia than Karen Carpenter's story, in my opinion.<br /><br />I would assume that they changed her husband's name/profession and all because they couldn't get his permission to actually include him (there were some bad terms there), but that whole aspect was inaccurate with the changes. On this note, I can't recall the movie bringing out her longing for a family and kids, which greatly prevailed in her life and explains her whirlwind romance and quick marriage to her husband.<br /><br />On the whole, it ends up as a low-budget made-for-TV movie that just isn't very high quality and can be disappointing if you're a hardcore fan who is hoping to see beyond Karen's disease. I feel that such a legend deserves/deserved a better film as a tribute to an amazing person and an awesome voice.

Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.<br /><br />The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.<br /><br />But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.<br /><br />I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.

Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.<br /><br />Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.<br /><br />I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".<br /><br />This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.<br /><br />Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.

Gung Ho is one of those movies that I never get tired of watching. Michael Keaton has always been a favorite of mine, & he is absolutely hilarious in this movie. Matching him step for step is Gedde Watanabe. The two of them work wonderfully together. Although this movie is a comedy, I also like how it shows Hunt (Keaton) & Kazihiro (Watanabe) struggling in their roles as the leaders of their respective groups. They both try so hard to keep the peace, & then they finally get into a fight (which is hysterical to watch). First, they're both on the floor. Then Hunt jumps on a chair. Kazihiro jumps on the desk. Hunt jumps on the desk with him. The fight then spills out from the office into the factory. I love that after they are separated by the workers, you can tell that they both feel bad for letting things get so out of hand. Also, there is a scene where you can see the influence that Hunt has had on Kazihiro. He is at his house & his boss from Japan arrives & says he would like to visit the factory tomorrow: <br /><br />Kazihiro: Tomorrow not good day. Sakamoto: Why not? Kazihiro: Factory is locked & we can't find key.<br /><br />Tell me you can't picture Michael Keaton saying something like that!<br /><br />I guess I really like this movie because it is genuinely funny, & also shows how people that are radically different can not only learn from each other, but become good friends as well.

There was a lot of hype of this movie and the commercials made it seem like it would be great. Sadly, like Bring It On 2, Bring It On 3 shamed glory of the original Bring It On. There is shameless stereotyping throughout the film. The lines given to the actors were humiliating for all the races involved in the film. The performance of Hayden Panattiere was sub-par both in terms of acting and cheerleading. There were several scenes in which I literally cringed because I was embarrassed for the cast because the scene (lines, plot, etc) were just so stupid. My recommendation to the makers of any future Bring It On films is that you should hire good cheerleaders and teach them to act because the "acting" of the cast was horrendous and their lack of cheerleading ability made them completely useless to the film. Only great character: Kirresha.

This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!!

Dr Tarr's Torture Dungeon is about a journalist who travels to an insane asylum to write about a new technique they use with their patients. However, the journalist soon finds out that things are not what they seem to be, and the asylum is being run by the patients, and the doctors are in cages. First of all, some parts of the film are just plain boring and just makes you want to fall asleep, and the interesting parts are interesting for all the wrong reasons(A guy who thinks he's a chicken, for instance). I have to admit that the story is actually pretty good, but the film itself bombs. The music of the film is really odd and like something you would hear in some insane comedy, and yes, there is a scene involving dancing chicken men, which pretty much made me want to shut off the screen. Watch this film at your own risk! <br /><br />Rated: R for Violence and Nudity.

In the 1940s, Veronica Lake made a meteoric rise to film stardom, thanks to her sultry beauty and, her highly exploited "peekaboo" hairstyle. She starred opposite big names like Alan Ladd and Fredric March, scoring screen successes in films like "This Gun For Hire" and "I Married A Witch". She held her own with female stars as well, and she surprised even her detractors with her performance as a bitter navy nurse in "So Proudly We Hail". But changing times and her own failings caught up with her, and by the end of the decade, her heyday was over. With two unsuccessful marriages behind her (and two more in her future) Veronica headed for New York City, where she made occasional television and summer stock appearances before dropping completely out of sight. It was briefly big news when she was found working as a barmaid in a second rate hotel in the early sixties. But by now, her longtime alcoholism and years of hard living had robbed her of her looks. Without them, public interest in her soon faded again. She did return to the stage in assorted vehicles, but her success was minimal. Eventually, she relocated to Miami, Florida, where she lived in relative obscurity. In 1966 she went to Canada for a part in an obscure movie called "Footsteps In The Snow" which had no U.S. release. The following year, she was discovered by some industrial filmmakers who had long wanted to produce a commercial feature. They approached her to star in their film "Time Is Terror" and convinced her to invest in the project. As one author put it, "If ever a movie queen suffered a terminal comedown, this was it". Surrounded by amateur performers and pathetic production values, she failed even to rise to a minimal level in this Miami, Florida shot quickie. Looking utterly ordinary in long shots, and luridly aged in close-ups, poor Veronica didn't act so much as walk through her part. As a deranged doctor, who has hit upon a successful youth restoration formula, using flesh-eating maggots!, she looks both bored and confused, her most unintentionally hilarious moment coming when she is forced to ad-lib while she struggles gamefully to don a pair of rubber gloves. The supporting cast is no help at all, merely advancing the plot by talking it to death. Director Brad Grinter apparently only required the actors to move while the camera was pointed at them, no need for anything resembling entertainment (There is, admittedly, one unintentionally hilarious scene involving a Private Detective/Nurse and a corpse in a wheelchair that predates ''Weekend At Bernie's'' by almost 20 years.) According to Veronica herself, the film was shelved for three years because no master shots were filmed. But in 1970, the production company scraped it together, changed the title to "Flesh Feast", and released it to cash in on Lake's just published biography. And, because former leading ladies such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Olivia De Havilland had unexpectedly revived their careers in horror movies, this travesty was promoted as Veronica's "comeback film". This seems a strange course of action for the filmmakers to pursue, though, because it's unlikely that the (young) audience for a horror film of this quality either knew or cared who Veronica Lake was. As expected, it did nothing for Veronica's career, and she died in poverty, three years later. A previous reviewer cites a scene in which the female detective working undercover as a nurse in the doctor's laboratory (overseeing the theft of bodies from a nearby morgue) enlists the help of a multi-talented chauffeur to cut up the body parts. "Poor Mrs. Lustig," she sighs, "I hope she doesn't mind leaving her body to science." "Try not to think about it," advises the chauffeur, sawing away. "I guess you are right, Hans." concludes the detective/nurse, "What is done is done." What a sad end to the career of a still fondly remembered star.

My wife and I find this movie to be a wonderful pick-me-up when we need to have a good laugh - the conflict between some characters and the repore between others make this a sure fire comedy relief. I am so looking forward to this movie coming on DVD so I can replace my well watched VHS.

I've seen a fair few films from the Far East recently.....some were excellent (Battle Royale, Infernal Affairs, the Eye), and some were not so great (Versus, The Triple Cross). Then there are ones like Uzumaki and Returner, which while flawed I still enjoyed.<br /><br />The basic premise involves the mysterious and horrific effects that a growing obsession with spirals has upon a community. Sound silly? Yeah, thats what I was thought. Firstly, the good stuff. Direction was top notch, sure a bit over the top in places but never the less interesting and stylish. Secondly the story, was original and like other writers commented very lovelace-esq...it was interesting. What it reminded me most of however was early Cronenberg; films like Shivers and Videodrome.<br /><br />The acting wasn't great, but not too horrible either. To be honest I was actually bored on a few occations....I felt the pacing especially initially was a little slow. My main problem was that it was too silly and funny to be true horror, and yet not so enough to be considered a comedy. *SPOILERS* below.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* Some good scenes (washing machine =)) and I liked the final shot/voiceover. At first I thought it ended far too abruptly but about 20 seconds later I realised the meaning and liked the end. However, because of the lack of seriousness in the story, combined with over the top scenes such as the news report at the school ment that I did not care for the characters much in the end. The final scene which was perhaps supposed to be a little poignent, while in reality I couldn't really care for the girl or her boyfriend. *SPOILERS END*<br /><br />So overall I kinda did like this film, but it frustrated me and I think there was real potential in addition to some good scenes. Couple of other points, the main girl is quite pretty and cute, and the song that plays at the end is good too. I rated it 7/10.<br /><br />

Charleton Heston wore one, James Franciscus wore one but Mark Wahlberg opts not to don the traditional loin cloth. I hope no one casts him as Tarzan. Linda Harrison wore a bikini in the first 2 Planet movies but Estrella Warren barely shows cleavage - her hair is always in the way. Tim Burton could have sexed up this simian saga & given the adults in the audience something to look at. Even the chaste Helena Bonham Carter never gets out of her costume which looks like a large curtain. She's cute but all the the love stuff is restricted to anxious looks & a little bitty kiss at the end. As in Artificial Intelligence which discusses inter species sex between robots & humans but never delivers - Planet of the Apes hints at inter species romance between the humans & the apes but only hints. Lisa Marie is the only ape that dares to be sexy. This movie has three great actors Tim Roth, Ms. Carter & Paul Giamatti chewing up the scenery as a trio of apes & they are fun to watch. Superlative make up (a certain Oscar) costumes, sets, music make this the hit summer movie of 2001.

This film requires a lot of patience. Because it focuses on mood and character development, the plot is very simple and many of the scenes take place on the same set - in Frances Austen's (the Sandy Dennis character) apartment. But the film builds to a disturbing climax.<br /><br />The characters create an atmosphere rife with sexual tension and psychological trickery. It's very interesting that Robert Altman directed this, considering the style and structure of his other films. Still, the trademark Altman audio style is evident here and there. I think what really makes this film work is the brilliant performance by Sandy Dennis. It's definitely one of her darker characters, but she plays it so perfectly and convincingly that it's scary. Michael Burns does a good job as the "mute" young man. Regular Altman player Michael Murphy has a small part. The solemn, moody set fits the content of the story very well. In short, this movie is a powerful study of loneliness, sexual repression, and desperation. Be patient, soak up the atmosphere, and pay attention to the wonderfully written script.<br /><br />I praise Robert Altman. This is one of his many films that deals with unconventional, fascinating subject matter. This film is disturbing, but it's sincere and it's sure to elicit a strong emotional response from the viewer. If you want to see an unusual film - some might even say bizarre - this is worth the time.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find in video stores. You may have to buy it off the internet.

One year after 'Love Thy Neighbour' made its I.T.V. debut, it followed the route taken by 'On The Buses' and 'Steptoe & Son' by graduating onto the big screen, in a picture made by Hammer Films. It opens with a stirring patriotic speech lauding the virtues of England's green and pleasant land, then cuts to a shot of Eddie and Bill walking up a street, arguing furiously. This escalates into a strange sequence of white and black neighbours vandalising their each other's homes. At least the original theme tune is retained ( even if it is sung by someone other than Stuart Gillies ).<br /><br />The local paper - 'The Gazette' - is holding a contest to find the best neighbours, the winners landing a Mediterranean cruise. Barbie suggests to Joan that they should enter. The thing is, can Bill and Eddie stay friends long enough to win it? That's the main part of the plot. The film is by and large episodic. One chunk is lifted directly from Season 1, namely Bill and Eddie going to the Club pretending to be on 'union business'. In reality they're going to see a stripper ( not meeting two girls ). Another portion of the movie has Bill, along with other black factory workers ( in the series he was the only one ), breaking a strike Eddie has helped bring about by various ploys ( including being smuggled in through the gates in beer barrels ). While another ( seemingly inspired by Powell and Driver's 'For The Love Of Ada' ) sees Eddie's talkative mother ( the magnificent Patricia Hayes ) getting friendly with Bill's father ( Charles Hyatt ).<br /><br />The climax to Episode 1 Season 1 reappears in an expanded form. Bill once more puts on paint and a towel to terrify Eddie, but his friends join him, and they dance round a drum containing a naked Booth, so that they can pretend to cook and eat him. Eddie then has to make his way home in the nude ( surprisingly, there is less nudity here than there was in Episode 2 Season 2 ).<br /><br />The film ends with the Reynolds and the Booths winning the 'Love Thy Neighbour' contest, and taking the cruise together, but there's an unexpected twist involving Joan's sex-mad brother Cyril ( James Beck - 'Private Walker' of 'Dad's Army' ), who is working as a steward.<br /><br />This is your typical '70's sitcom-into-movie, with all the faults usually prevalent in such films. The laughs are scattered about, and interest wanes after about half an hour. The cast is augmented by familiar faces such as Melvyn Hayes ( cast as 'Terry', a character from Episode 2 Season 1, played on that occasion by Leslie Meadows ), Bill Fraser ( as the factory manager ), Anna Dawson, Andria Lawrence ( who seems to have been in every '70's British comedy film, mostly cast as nymphomaniacs ), and Arthur English. The director, John Robins, was also responsible for the 'Man About The House' movie.<br /><br />Funniest moment - while Eddie sleeps in a quiet part of the factory, Bill paints his face black. The first he knows of it is when the manager's secretary screams in terror. The tables have been turned!

It's been so long since I've seen this movie (at least 15 years) and yet it still haunts me with a vivid image of the horrific consequences that prisoners of war can face despite the terms of the Geneva Convention.<br /><br />A unit of Australian underwater demolitions experts are captured in an archipelago near Japan following a successful mission to set mines in a Japanese harbor.<br /><br />Once in prison these men expect the same treatment as any other POWs but to their dismay soon learn from a friendly Japanese prison guard that they are being tried as spies since they were out of uniform when captured. The consequences of such an infraction, by Japanese martial code, is execution by beheading.<br /><br />Despite their pleas, and the pleas of the sympathetic prison guard, the day of reckoning approaches like a ticking time bomb. The tension is so high you will actually hear the ticking, though it may just be your chest pounding with the percussion of a marching execution squad.<br /><br />The ending is actually too painful to reenact in my head much less write it here. But I can promise you-- you'll never forget it. Good luck finding the video in the U.S.

Shwaas is awesome ! considering that the producers had a meagre budget, they have done an excellent job. It is a must watch. The small kid has done an excellent job with a lot of emotions flowing through his eyes. Grandfather is at his best. The photography is superb. Technically correct and very creative. It helps in adding a lot of emotions to the mainstream content. The movie will keep u engrossed and don't be surprised if you are shaken after the movie and the story lingers in your mind for a few days.I sincerely hope that they make it to the final Oscar nomination<br /><br />Enjoy and again don't miss it

Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.<br /><br />It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.<br /><br />He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.<br /><br />2/10 Major disappointment.

I don't know about you but i go to horror films to be scared and this was anything but scary, the movie had several chances to be truly scary and failed miserably EVERY TIME! Several of these supposedly suspenseful moments were haunted by some of the worst cg you will see this year, perhaps decade! I mean when i say the cg looks like daytime TV, I'm giving daytime TV a bad name, I've seen better stuff on the sci-fi channel. Who i really feel sorry for is the actors,(that they have their names attached to this film) they did a good job, i cared about most of the characters and i felt that their performances were quite good, but that was not enough to bring this movie out of the gutter. Whats really amusing is the reuse of some of the sets, if you have seen "exorcist: the beginning" it will be easy to spot the reuse of some of the buildings. However what i thought was the worst thing about this film, even above the cg problems was the main demon, he was just not scary in anyway, his form, the way he talked, he was extremely bland. all in all this movie was a horrible experience and i would have walked out of the theater if it weren't for my wife wanting to see the end.

The slasher sub-genre has been pretty much exhausted - in fact, even by 1979, just one year after the supposed 'first slasher', Halloween (which was released seven years after Bay of Blood), was released; the sub-genre wasn't far from being exhausted; but Tourist Trap represents one of the more original outings. The film follows the same basic formula as most slashers - i.e. madman murders a load of kids, but draws its originality from the fact that madman is shown from the beginning (as opposed to an unseen assailant or a man in a mask) and we actually get some insight into his character. The fact that this killer also has telekinetic abilities, including being able to control the wax dummies that fill his house, adds to the originality. We kick off with a great opening sequence, which sees a young man fall foul of having a flat tire after finding himself in a gas station of terror. The scene is amazingly creepy, as the wax dummies taunt him and things fly from the shelves - and it gives the audience a great insight into what is to come; namely, a very creepy horror film! <br /><br />The acting credibility is as non-existent as you would expect from a seventies slasher, but to be honest; it's not all that bad. The girls look hot, the boys don't really matter; and Chuck Connors is more than adequately creepy in the role of the psycho. He's not exactly Anthony Perkins; but still, good enough. It's not the acting that's the star of the show, however, and as you might expect - the creepy atmosphere takes that prize. Wax models, as proved by the likes of House of Wax (Vincent Price version...) are very creepy; and the film makes best use of that fact. There are very few things in cinema that can be frightening by simply being there - but wax statues are definitely one of those things. The killer's special ability could easy have gotten in the way of the atmosphere, but the film makes best use of this fact, even, by having various things fly off shelves and it goes well with the rest of the movie. On the whole, this is a very good film. While Tourist Trap might not be absolutely essential viewing; it's well worth seeing and I can recommend it.

ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother. ultra cheezy soundtrack. vinnie tries really hard. very tiring script that flashes between past and present. cheap editing... saw the boom twice. don't bother.

I watched this movie last night, and let me say, it's the absolute worst thing I have ever seen. The entire film is a train wreck, and it's not the actors. It is the horrible script.<br /><br />** Spoilers ** Alright, Eddie loses his job to a monkey. His nerdy son is disappointed. The bathroom goes crazy.<br /><br />He gets a free vacation. He goes along with Uncle Nick and the original Audry. Their boats crashes. They stay on an island. They are stupid and don't even bother to look at the nearby hotel.<br /><br />OK, so that's that. What makes this movie pathetic is the humor. It is so horrid, hillybillyish, and stupid, you can't even laugh. ANd it's not stupid funny humor either. I couldn't laugh the entire thing.

**Warning! Spoilers Ahead!**<br /><br />This short is part one of two that expound upon the brief portion of "The Matrix" in which Morpheus explains how the matrix came to be. Because we already know the story, the plot itself is no surprise; and the short isn't so much entertaining as informative. But that's how it is presented, as a file in the historical archives. The visuals are better than average, and the generally cold colors aid the purpose of the short.<br /><br />A couple problems. The violence of the tale is a little gratuitous and, combined with the occasional dose of political correctness (UN scenes), detracts from the straight narrative of the short. Plus it needs to be seen with part two to be complete.<br /><br />The Animatrix concept is brilliant, and despite a few issues, this short still fulfills its purpose. It would not have fit in the original movie in style, content, or flow. This is the perfect method to reveal the history.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Good information. Could have been told a little better, but still a solid 7 of 10.

One of the best memories of my childhood. Should be on DVD. It captured everything we grew up with in the seventies - peace, mellowness, flower power and great acoustic music. The two hosts, Carol and Paula, were the definitive peacenik hippies, with long hair, peasant blouses and bell bottoms(they looked like a Katherine Ross(ala "The Graduate") and Ali McGraw(ala "Love Story"),respectively.)<br /><br />They made us happy with jokes from the daisy "chucklepatch", gave us lessons on being nice through conversations with the crotchedy garden squirrel, and entertained us with music from their guitar. They were the best, and Carol was also the original Sandy in the original production of "Grease"(cool).<br /><br />This show should be in a time capsule from the era that would also include, "The Yellow Submarine", "Arrow to the Sun", and Marlo Thomas', "Free to Be...You & Me.", also, "Sunshine", and "The Point."<br /><br />And last, but not least, that theme song, "See ya, See ya, Hope you had a good, good time, ah ha, Glad we got to say good mornin' to ya , Hope we get get to see ya again, See ya, See ya, Glad that you could stay awhile, ah ha, hope we get see ya again, see ya, see ya.

If you have ever wanted to know more about cab drivers, then this is an excellent movie to watch, for informational purposes only. I can just hear it now, "Wait, just wait a second! Why don't we follow a cab driver through his entire day! Cabbies are funny, and so are the people they meet, and they only talk to each other for just a couple of minutes, so the other actors should be cheap! Harry, you take care of production, Joan, you've got materials, Brian, you go round up some actors and we'll all meet back here tomorrow to start filming!"<br /><br />The first 90% of the movie could not have been any worse had that very thing happened. At least with no planning whatsoever, there is always the element of surprise to be found. Some of Jim Carrey's movies have stuff added as they go along and they always do well at the box offices. The problem here is that the first 90% is pretty well scripted out, and it pretty much sucks. Paul Dillon plays the cab driver in Chicago who is working all day. We pretty much see what he sees. People get in and out of his car and he drives all around town. He talks to those people for a few seconds and then we get some more people. <br /><br />I'll admit, there were a couple of funny bits here and there. A religious family tries to talk the cab driver into going to church with them, he takes a pregnant lady and her husband to the hospital, breaks up a rich businessman from his girlfriend, a poor girlfriend from her boyfriend and takes a rape victim home. I guess the moral of the movie is that a Cab Driver is more than a Cab Driver and has a larger sphere of influence over the lives of his passengers than you might originally think. For some people, he's just a means of getting from here to there, but for others, his very ordinary words help change the direction of their lives.<br /><br />The last passenger of the day is used to try make sense of the rest of the movie, and to a small extent it succeeds. It had a bit of that deathbed repentance feel to it where the good majority of the movie sucks and then at the very end, it tries to make it all better in just one or two changes. I wasn't too impressed with the movie as a whole, but there were a few bits and pieces worth watching again. As far as the actors go, Paul Dillon is it. John Cusack, Gillian Anderson and Julianne Moore are all in this, for about 30 seconds each, but don't watch this for any of them or you will most certainly be disappointed. I will give the other people invovled some credit that it's not your ordinary movie they have produced here, but it wasn't a very good one either. There just wasn't enough material to keep you going for an hour and a half. It was a decent effort, but it failed none the same.

Released as Zentropa in North America to avoid confusion with Agniezska Holland's own Holocaust film Europa Europa, this third theatrical feature by a filmmaker who never ceases to surprise, inspire or downright shock is a bizarre, nostalgic, elaborate film about a naive American in Germany shortly following the end of WWII. The American, named Leo, doesn't fully get what he's doing there. He has come to take part in fixing up the country since, in his mind, it's about time Germany was shown some charity. No matter how that sounds, he is not a Nazi sympathizer or so much as especially pro-German, merely mixed up. His uncle, who works on the railroad, gets Leo a job as a helmsman on a sleeping car, and he is increasingly enmeshed in a vortex of 1945 Germany's horrors and enigmas.<br /><br />This progression starts when Leo, played rather memorably by the calm yet restless actor Jean-Marc Barr, meets a sultry heiress on the train played by Barbara Sukowa, an actress with gentility on the surface but internal vigor. She seduces him and then takes him home to meet her family, which owns the company which manufactures the trains. These were the precise trains that took Jews to their deaths during the war, but now they run a drab day-to-day timetable, and the woman's Uncle Kessler postures as another one of those good Germans who were just doing their jobs. There is also Udo Kier, the tremendous actor who blew me away in Von Trier's shocking second film Epidemic, though here he is mere scenery.<br /><br />Another guest at the house is Eddie Constantine, an actor with a quiet strength, playing a somber American intelligence man. He can confirm that Uncle Kessler was a war criminal, though it is all completely baffling to Leo. Americans have been characterized as gullible rubes out of their element for decades, but little have they been more blithely unconcerned than Leo, who goes back to his job on what gradually looks like his own customized death train.<br /><br />The story is told in a purposely uncoordinated manner by the film's Danish director, Lars Von Trier, whose anchor is in the film's breathtaking editing and cinematography. He shoots in black and white and color, he uses double-exposures, optical effects and trick photography, having actors interact with rear-projected footage, he places his characters inside a richly shaded visceral world so that they sometimes feel like insects, caught between glass for our more precise survey.<br /><br />This Grand Jury Prize-winning surrealist work is allegorical, but maybe in a distinct tone for every viewer. I interpret it as a film about the last legs of Nazism, symbolized by the train, and the ethical accountability of Americans and others who appeared too late to salvage the martyrs of these trains and the camps where they distributed their condemned shiploads. During the time frame of the movie, and the Nazi state, and such significance to the train, are dead, but like decapitated chickens they persist in jolting through their reflexes.<br /><br />The characters, music, dialogue, and plot are deliberately hammy and almost satirically procured from film noir conventions. The most entrancing points in the movie are the entirely cinematographic ones. Two trains halting back and forth, Barr on one and Sukowa on another. An underwater shot of proliferating blood. An uncommonly expressive sequence on what it must be like to drown. And most metaphysically affecting of all, an anesthetic shot of train tracks, as Max von Sydow's voice allures us to hark back to Europe with him, and abandon our personal restraint.

When I saw the poster at the theater, I thought that it is a "new line" of a horror story without a famous cast worth giving a try. But, after I went in, I wanted to leave after 20 minutes. There was a lot of non-sense and logical flaws. To me, it is a movie that is not worth putting in theaters. It is not even worth seeing.

the first time I saw this movie, I just thought "what the hell?" a 10-year-old kid driving around bizarre places, meeting bizarre people, going after a game called MOTORAMA! Hell yeah! I enjoyed this movie a lot!<br /><br />Jordan Christopher-Michael is a brilliant young actor! It's a shame he stopped act. He interprets very well his character Gus on the movie.<br /><br />Gus loses an eye, got tattoos and go at the most weird cities acting with Flea, Drew Barrymore and Meat Loaf! Want more? <br /><br />OK, don't even try to understand the story, but why this movie needs one!? Just open your mind and let Gus drive you into this journey.<br /><br />"Motorama Gus, you won Motorama"

I thought this movie was really good. It ends up showing the viewers in the end that Leila should of kept what she had. Leila was sick of her husband Jim, who was more worried about work then her. He was so into his work that he forgot their anniversary. He was also very sloppy. She couldn't take it anymore so she left to see if he would miss her. The movie shows that he misses her, he even tries to make up for the night he messed up. He goes to her and tries to bring her home. She ends up finding another man named Schuyler. He seemed like the man she always wanted neat and notices her. In the end she sorta foreshadows by when she look at Schuylers shoes and the way he let his cigar ashes fall on the floor the way Jim did the same kinda thing. Jim ends off making lots of money and cleaning himself up. Leila thinks in the end that she should of kept her husband because thats all she really wanted and he did changing.

Movie didn't have much plot and was uninteresting. Basically you spend a lot of time watching people paint. Also it's very difficult to hear or understand the dialogue -- partially because of the accents, but also because words are mumbled.

Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).<br /><br />Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.

I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.

Take your basic Frankenstein flick, inject some Reanimator (but not the good parts), and you have Doctor Hackenstein. Certainly, this was obviously inspired by aforementioned films but it never materializes as anything special on its own.<br /><br />A scientist accidentally kills his wife, so the whole movie takes place over the course of one night as he attempts to revive his wife. To revive his wife, he decides to chop off body parts from some women that have become stranded and, coincidentally, decide to stay the night at his place.<br /><br />I can't really say the acting is bad, nor is the directing. Everything here is just way too standard. What little attempts there are at humor actually work (check out the scene when Hackenstein keeps hiding behind his deaf assistant because she would undoubtedly be very upset if she saw him clutching a woman and a needle), but that's hardly enough to recommend this film. The music is decent, what blood that's there is decent, and the cast looks quite good. And for half of the time, I was even entertained by this film. But I never felt like this was anything more than a time waster. Avoidable.<br /><br />Try Frankenhooker instead.

Gloria Swanson (as Leila Porter) is an understandably bored wife. Workaholic husband Elliott Dexter (as James Denby Porter) has "lost his romance" along with his waistline; he also smokes cigars in bed, eats onions, and snores. He can barely remember his own anniversary - which is attended by caddish Lew Cody (as Schuyler Van Sutphen); the younger man eyes Ms. Swanson's voluptuous figure, and flirts unabashedly. Soon, Swanson is drawn to Mr. Cody. Then, Mr. Dexter decides to try and get her back. Who will win? <br /><br />The three principals are fine, with Swanson most impressive in the pivotal role as the woman torn. Julia Faye grabs supporting honors as Cody's other interest, "Toodles"; off-screen, she tempted director Cecil B. DeMille. The DeMille touch is evident; especially in an imaginary sequence wherein Cody promises Swanson... "Pleasure… Wealth… Love…" <br /><br />******* Don't Change Your Husband (1/26/19) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Gloria Swanson, Elliott Dexter, Lew Cody

The Treasure Island DVD should be required viewing in any film production course! It's a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie. Watching the movie and then listening to the writer/director's commentary demonstrates graphically the vast chasm between what he knows about the characters and what he communicates to his audience about them. Call me old-fashioned, but I think of movies as a means of communication, and communication isn't complete if the audience doesn't know what the hell the director is talking about. The director's avowed purpose is to make a movie void of "Hollywood conventions". Among those conventions, alas, is consistency of character and clarity of concept. The director himself realizes that audiences often don't understand points where he has purposely avoided a "Hollywood cliché". However, he never seems to grasp the idea that clichés exist for a reason. They are shorthand for conveying complex ideas quickly and clearly. It's fine to avoid them, but they need to be replaced with some other way of communicating the same idea, not simply eliminated. The film is built on an intriguing premise, rich with potential. Two puppets are assigned to fabricate a personality and background for an unidentified corpse that is to be used in a disinformation mission in the closing days of WWII. Soon each begins to populate their personal fantasies with the character and their invention becomes increasingly real to them. Someone with less disdain for the "Hollywood convention" of traditional storytelling could create a wonderful film with this idea. This film certainly isn't it! The puppets do everything they can to bring consistency to these characters, but they are all too often defeated by the dazed and confused script. In particular, I'm becoming increasingly impressed by Gonzo, who plays the lively corpse. In a number of muppet films, he always stands out as a very charismatic puppet.

This is one of the dumbest ideas for a movie. Remake a classic film shot-by-shot. I hope nobody tries this technique again. In 1998, "Good Will Hunting" director Gus Van Sant tried it by remaking Hitchcock's 1960 classic "Psycho" and failed miserably. What on earth was Van Sant thinking of? This remake doesn't even come close to topping the original. The few changes that were made here were no help. If you want to see "Psycho", the choice is obvious. See the original.<br /><br />* (out of four)

An egotistic major league baseball player is forced to continue his career in Japan, he contends with a culture that is alien to him, an apparently humorless manager, an attractive Japanese woman and his own professional and social insecurities. There is a certain subtle charm that flows through Tom Selleck's performances. There is humor, sometimes softly understated, as in this film, sometimes slapstick as in "Folks!", but always there seems to be some higher purpose involved. Throw in an individual full of self doubts who struggles to solve his personal difficulties while holding fast to "doing the right thing," and you end up with a film both funny as well as thought-provoking. The cast fits together like a championship team, and even if neither cast nor film win awards for their efforts, they will leave the viewers feeling good (and maybe that's the best results after all). You'll want to watch this film more than once, and each time, Mr. Baseball hits a home run.

My father took me to see this film when it was released in 1976. I was but a child and it scared the crap out of me. So much so that I had to leave the theatre during a particularly claustrophobic tunnel scene as it was too intense for me!!! I went home to the safety of my family. I saw the film all the way through as I got older and thoroughly enjoyed it. Shame about the men in monster suits, though. If you overlook the cheapness of the production and delve deeper, you'll find an excellent performance by Cushing, a stunning opening score, some nice photography and the ever reliable Mr.Douglas McClure, my childhood hero!British police constables guarding the Whitehouse at the end! Titty bang bang cave woman! Monsters with beaks! Actors in monster suits gliding on wires! This has it all! Superb.

This is another one of those fundamentalist Christian movies that hit you over the head with religion like a sledgehammer. You know you are in trouble when the setup of the story is completely ridiculous. Three men are flying to Mexico to deliver Bibles. This makes no sense since the church is Protestant and most Mexicans are Catholic. Protestant and Catholic bibles are not the same. The Catholic bible has books in it that are not in the Protestant bible. I also find it difficult to believe that churches in Mexico would not distribute bibles to them. I can understand if they were going to a place where Christianity is in the minority. But Mexico is far fetched. If you cannot believe the setup of a story, then you don't the rest of the story either. A movie about religion can be entertaining, but not this movie.

I went to a small advance screening of this movie on July 19th, knowing no more than the names of a few of the actors and that it was a fantasy/adventure quest of some sort.<br /><br />The plot line really is nothing like I have seen, and a unique story is certainly appreciated with everything else that is currently in or coming soon to theaters. In spite of what first impressions may give, it isn't cheesy, corny, tacky, or ridiculous, and is actually highly entertaining and funny. The flow is quite well done, nothing seems rushed or dragged out. The soundtrack, for lack of better words, is magical and adds much to the film, as opposed to simply filling the silence as often happens in movies or TV. And even though I might have known what was coming at points, I still couldn't bear to stop watching the screen; to my knowledge, not a single person left the theater during the entire movie.<br /><br />My one gripe is that there seems to be almost no marketing for this film, and as brilliant as it is I can't figure out why.

I was lucky enough to see this film at a festival last year and had half expected it to get a release. The fact that it was shot on a digital camcorder has surely inhibited its success, but as i understand it was never the intention of the film maker to make it LOOK LIKE FILM in the first place, it was more about the story the characters and their relationships. Is that not what films are supposed to be about!? But it did have a quality in the texture of its visual appearance that suggests May Thomas is onto something we should pay attention to. For independent film makers and producers alike who have a the talent and lacking the money and drive, a lot can be learned from watching this film, technically it has everything going for it, the use of light, music etc by far outweigh that of any other digital feature film i have ever seen and therefore it is worthy of much praise. The actors performances are believable to a point, if not slightly under played, i felt there was much more in there, more depth, in particular from the male lead John Paul Clarke. But one thing that really does bother me, as a film maker myself, is the film being in black and white a need to cover up a multitude of sins than if it was colour? Do we have more to learn in the progression of digital technology? Or is this the future of wonderful, affordable film making?

I've been trying to track down this film just by googling bad phrases about "teenagers seduce and kill man in his house" and such. I think I first saw parts of this film when I was about 10 years old when it was running on cable. It made quite an impression! It's the kind of film that kids know they shouldn't be watching, and switch the channel when their parents come in. When I saw who the cast was, I couldn't believe that some of these good actors were in such a horrible movie. Then again, if you like to see men who cheat on their wives get murdered, then this is an interesting film. Also, if I recall, there's some pretty interesting pseudo-lesbian moments. Probably the dumbest ending of all time, but still...memorable.

So lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of "them". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.<br /><br />This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The "F" word holds together an unimaginative script.

Great job! Was very exciting and had great stunts. A show that really rocked. Was a great job by all who worked on this one; and especially the acting on Bobbie Phillips' part. This would have been great on the big screen. Would like to see more of these movies of the week or perhaps a weekly series. This was great entertainment and am glad I watched! By far the best of the three. Keep up the good work UPN and Bobbie Phillips. I'll be looking for the next one.

I just finished screening El Padrino in Germany. A great film. We look forward to seeing more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant classic. The ending with little ambiguity leaves the story open for a sequel. Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance in "blood in and blood out" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic control. Something that few film makers can afford.

In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.<br /><br />Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).

Sorry, folks! This is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. Sometimes when a movie is really bad you can joke about it and have a good laugh (like Plan 9 from outer space), this movie is so bad you can´t even enjoy it on an ironic level.

About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.

Paulie is a fantasy of a littler girl or perhaps her recollection of what her youth was like growing up.<br /><br />Tony Shaloub executes a flawless performance as an Russian Scientist (PhD) who cannot find decent work in America. He befriends an isolated parrot while performing meanial duties of a janitor at a behavioral science lab.<br /><br />The chief Doctor is a bitter man, as Paulie, who can speak and fully comprehend language and learn, embarasses the Doctor, who later banishses him to the lower levels of the building, where Mikail (Tony S.) finds him.<br /><br />Paulie recants his life with Marie and how they lost each other. The quest begins to reunite Paulie with Marie, only more than 20 years has passed.<br /><br />The movie ends, some will say predictably, with Mikail reuniting Paulie with Marie. The story closes with the three entering Marie's home, where you can make the final your own choice.<br /><br />Great family film!

I can laugh at just about anything, but unfortunately there is not a single one to be found in this stink bomb!!!!I honestly watched this movie from beginning to end, and did not even crack a smile. I am shocked that Sandler, Schneider, Spade etc., would put their names on this piece of crap. Worse than the worst that ever came out of the worst that ever came out of former SNL players. What more can I say? How could such tasteless, extremely unfunny drivel come from such a pool of apparent talent!! Maybe I have lost my sense of humor, (not likely), but I cannot remember a movie that I have disliked this much in a long time. What a waste of 2 hours I will never get back.