Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

Follow

Mushroom Solutions 2

I first saw this when it premiered more than ten years ago. I saw it again today and it still had a big impact on me. She Fought Alone is about a girl, Caitlin (played by Tiffani Thiessen), who is raped by Jace (played by David Lipper), a classmate who enjoys hurting girls. Caitlin is in a popular high school clique, but when she reveals she is raped the clique turns against her, led by Ethan (played by Brian Austin Green).<br /><br />This movie chronicles Caitlin's struggle against an entire town, including a high school that essentially lets athletes determine the social environment, allowing them to get away with whatever they wish.<br /><br />Thiessen and Green are the top performers, and there is real chemistry between the two of the them throughout the entire film. All of the actors in this film, which was inspired by actual events, did a great job. She Fought Alone really captures the essence of what it is like to be in high school (at least in 1995), and having one's self-esteem and reputation at stake. Recommended. 10/10

Following the release of Cube 2: Hypercube (2003), and playing off the alleged success of the original Cube (1998), Director Ernie Barbarash takes the liberty of bringing us the third installment in the trilogy, the prequel Cube Zero.<br /><br />Deep in the bowels of a giant and faceless institution, time and place unknown, two low-ranking operators, Wynn (Zachary Bennett) and Dodd (David Huband) sit and observe on monitors the behavior of people that have been placed in a giant network of cubic chambers, some of which are rigged with death traps. Told that the people they are observing are convicted felons who chose this horrific and deadly ordeal over a lethal injection, these observers have had no problem with their jobs until Wynn, a mathematical genius, discovers that one of the prisoners, a woman named Cassandra (Stephanie Moore) never agreed to be put inside the Cube. Suddenly it's realized that perhaps their "jobs" are not what they seem, and that they may be part of something deeply sick and twisted...<br /><br />For people that have seen and enjoyed the original Cube, this prequel will probably not be to your liking. It's not that the story does not have potential; it's simply that the first Cube film never needed to be expanded on. Standing alone, it is a neat little psychological thriller with very interesting concepts and a certainty about its own message. It was also nicely self-contained. The problem with Cube Zero is that it destroys some of the mystique of the original, attempting to answer questions with more questions but only really resulting in making a mess of what never needed fixing.<br /><br />What this new film has to offer, which is questions about the psychological nature of authoritarianism and the banality of evil, certainly are good questions to be raised, but probably should have been done so on their own merits, rather than as a continuation of a film that had no such aspirations.<br /><br />Having said this, the other traits of the film, such as acting and direction and writing, are not awful. There is a bleak, dark look to the film akin to such film noir as 'The Matrix' and 'Dark City', and they have certainly managed to recapture the claustrophobic feeling of the first Cube. Unfortunately for Barbarash, these are not enough positive qualities to save it.

Every James Bond movie has its own set of rules. Just like every Indiana Jones movie has ITS own set of rules. And the fact that screenwriters don't break these rules maintains the integrity of the characters. With a completely unnecessary plot twist, the integrity of both Ocean films plummets somewhere between Airplane 2 and a Roadrunner cartoon.<br /><br />Imagine what would happen, while teetering on the rope bridge outside of the Temple of Doom, if Indy told Shorty and Willie not to worry because throughout the entire first two movies he's secretly had super powers and can fly them both to safety.<br /><br />Entertaining? Sure, for a Roadrunner cartoon. But Spielberg would never have done that because it would have destroyed the integrity of the film. More importantly, it would have ANGERED the audience. They'd already sat on the edge of their seats through 3 hours worth of Indiana Jones movies and they were counting on Indiana to get them off that bridge in a believable way. If he were to fly off? People would have walked out of the theaters the same way people did during Ocean's 12.<br /><br />SPOILERS<br /><br />1. Julia Roberts'character, Tess, infiltrates a museum by disguising herself as...Julia Roberts?!? A clever twist? By breaking the fourth wall three hours after we've been introduced to these characters? Is this the Naked Gun 33 and 1/3? It's a textbook example of how a cheap laugh can ruin an entire film. But wait...just in case you haven't walked out yet...<br /><br />2. The suspense builds throughout the last hour of the movie -- how will they pull off the heist -- there are only 10...8...5...2 DAYS LEFT! And then in the last 12 minutes of the film, the ONLY entertaining part of this movie, we see that the heist was made days earlier and took Matt Damon all of 30 seconds to pull off. The past 10 days? A complete waste of your time.<br /><br />BACK TO INDIANA JONES ON THE ROPE BRIDGE..."Just relax, Willie! I stole the REAL stones back about a month ago! Besides, I convinced them you were Kate Capshaw!"<br /><br />If you haven't already seen it, cut your losses and go see the Polar Express. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but there really is a Santa Claus. Most importantly, you won't feel cheated leaving the theater.

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.

Apparently re-cut episodes from the Gangbusters TV show on the big screen. While this was frequently done in the 50's and 60's because people didn't have a TV or a color TV and producers wanted an increased return on their investment (big screen ticket sales or if it went to the small screen resale of a series that isn't in syndication), the results were usually less then the sum of their parts. The only time I've ever seen it work were where multi-part stories were put together (Ala Rocky Jones or Man From Uncle) or in the case of horror anthology (The Veil and 13 Demon Street). Here the effect is to have stories of American criminals in the 20's and 30's (Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, etc)inter-cut with each other as a narrator talks about how the FBI hunted them down. Its a weird concoction that doesn't quite work because its clear that there are things here that don't belong together. More than once I looked at the TV oddly because things didn't seem right. In fairness I won't describe the cheapness of the production since this was what early TV (and the series) was like. Its not bad, but its not very good either. To be perfectly honest the episodes of the series that I've seen work better a single episodes where we're not expecting as much. Given the choice I'd rent dvds of the show instead of this movie.

Plot is never the strong point of a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie, but "Follow the Fleet"'s screenplay is exceptionally mediocre. Fred and Ginger still come off all right--they play "Bake" Baker and Sherry Martin, dancers whose personal and professional partnership ended when Bake joined the Navy. When they meet again, their love-hate relationship generates some entertaining comic moments. But for much of the movie, they take a backseat to a tedious subplot about Sherry's sister Connie (Harriet Hilliard), her love for sailor Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott), Bilge's dalliance with another woman, and an old schooner that Connie inherited from her father. Though Hilliard is rather charming, this plot is uninteresting.<br /><br />But at the same time, "Follow the Fleet" is blessed with an exceptional Irving Berlin score that gives the stars plenty of chances to show off their talents. Astaire gets two good solos with "We Saw the Sea" and "I'd Rather Lead a Band." He sings expressively and, of course, dances electrifyingly--and the sailor suit makes him look a little more boyish and athletic than usual. Rogers sings the catchy "Let Yourself Go" and later does a solo tap-dance to the same tune. <br /><br />The three duets really save the film, even though they're all shoehorned into the plot with silly excuses. Fred and Ginger win a dance contest by doing an energetic routine to another reprise of "Let Yourself Go". Later, they sing and dance "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket" as if it were an early rehearsal of the number, flubbing the choreography to comic effect. At the end, the movie finally figures out how to get Fred and Ginger in evening clothes for a romantic duet--it makes it part of a show-within-the-show. The situation is contrived, but the song, "Let's Face the Music and Dance", is one of the most sinuously beautiful things Berlin ever wrote (it's reminiscent of Cole Porter), and the dancing matches it in elegance. Quintessential Astaire and Rogers.<br /><br />It would be a chore to sit through most of the dialogue sections of "Follow the Fleet" again, and, in fact, it's not necessary, because the plot rarely propels the musical numbers. But I could watch the songs over and over.

Being a fan of Saint Etienne and the City of London, I was very excited to see this movie on the list of the Vancouver International Film Festival. This movie has great shots, an absolutely excellent soundtrack and interesting insights into a 'not so well known' London.<br /><br />The movie is held completely in 'dark' colours, which I personally don't like too much. Furthermore the narration was a little too British and the comments sometimes got a little flat. Other than that, there are some great comments by Londoners and excellent shots. FINISTERRE doesn't glorify London by showing all the great attractions of the city, but rather gives deep insights in what London is really like. From the East end to the vibrant centre with its music scene as well as the 'special little retreats' for Londoners.<br /><br />All in all:<br /><br />+Great Soundtrack +Nice shots +great insights<br /><br />-Narration -Tiering to watch at times -Very dark picture<br /><br />Worth watching! I give it a 7/10

When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch! <br /><br />The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue! <br /><br />The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess! <br /><br />I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!<br /><br />By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.<br /><br />Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.

As a native of New Orleans, I can state that almost everything in this movie, from the atrocious N'Awlins dialect to the highly creative "manipulation" of Crescent City geography, is horrible. This is another one of those Big Hollywood movies that decides to stereotype New Orleans as: 1. A city full of French-sounding idiots 2. A city full of people who sound as if they've just returned from Blanche Dubois' summer home 3. A city of drunkards, where every day is Mardi Gras 4. A city of deep mystery, where almost everyone practices or is a victim of voodoo (I admit that maybe we are a city of drunkards; although every day is NOT Mardi Gras). "The Big Easy" is one of the worst films about New Orleans. I wouldn't recommend it to anybody.

I'm surprised that no one yet has mentioned that there are two versions of this same film. The lion's share of the footage in both is identical, but here is where they differ: In one version (the version I have seen most often on broadcast TV), the group of clerics guarding the gateway consists of the "Brotherhood of the Protectors", a (fictional) splinter group of priests and brothers "excommunicated" by the Church. In the other version, which I've seen only once on TV, the clerics guarding the gateway are depicted as priests of the official Church, meaning the Archdiocese of New York (or perhaps Brooklyn). Also, in the former version, in most of the pertinent scenes, the clerics are referred to as "brothers" (and in some scenes, you can see where the lips say "Father" so-and-so but the dubbed audio says "Brother" so-and-so. In the latter version, I believe everyone is referred to as "Father".<br /><br />In any event, it seems that one of these two versions is more or less a partial re-shooting of the other, with all "Brotherhood of the Protector" scenes re-shot as "Archdiocese" scenes, or vice versa. (Kind of reminds me of the Raymond Burr cutaway scenes in "Godzilla"). I have videotaped both versions off broadcast TV, so no, I'm not imagining this. Can anyone shed some more light on the story behind these two versions of the film?

This movie lacked... everything: story, acting, surprise, ingenuity and a soul. Fifteen minutes in, I was staring at the screen saying, "How could all of these guys get together and consider themselves friends (even without the girl)?" Another fifteen minutes in, I was praying for as much Amanda Peet as possible. When a bad movie quietly rears it's ugly head, eye candy is a nice consolation. But there wasn't much of that! Cheated on all fronts!

This movie is one of my favorite comedies of all time. The dialog is crisp, the pace is fast. Not only is this a clever comedy, this is an interesting look at what goes on behind the scenes in the television news business.<br /><br />There are so many funny lines...a couple of my favorites:<br /><br />Ernie Merriman: (sarcastically) It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room. Jane: (seriously) NO, it's not, it's awful!!<br /><br />Aaron: He must be good looking Jane: How do you know that? Aaron: No one invites a bad looking idiot to their room!<br /><br />The performances of Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt were absolutely brilliant! Even years later, I remember this movie well. Often forgotten is the wonderfully funny Joan Cusack! I love the scene where the newsroom personnel are racing to beat a deadline. There are so many funny scenes that it's hard to pick a favorite. I highly recommend this film.

I didn't have much high hopes for this one. Before seeing it, the story yelled "stereotype" at me.<br /><br />I mean... come on! It's so stupid the plot line about the innocent android that realizes that the people who created him are immoral, then decides to change everything.<br /><br />I had to see it three times. The first two times I fell asleep because I was so incredibly bored by it. It's very rare that movies bore me so much I fall asleep during them. The third time I forced myself to watch it, simply to be able to warn people about it.<br /><br />I got the distinct impression that the people responsible for this mess had tried to take all the cool/neat things from other scifi/action movies, and put them together to make a kick-ass movie! They took the android/robot, lots of action, thin story, stereotype characters, and a big fight in the end and threw it together. Unfortunately, the movie sucks. The acting is so wooden you could build a house out of it, the storyline/plot is absolutely laughable, the camerawork and editing is horrid, the direction is non-existent, and to top it all off, everything is so cliche and ridiculous that it just annoys the hell out of you.<br /><br />I was left with the feeling that I could've spent the time watching this one doing something much more creative, like trimming my fingernails, or watching the grass grow.

Damn, I thought I'd seen some bad westerns. Can't top this one though. Hell I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for a Trinity Triple Feature for cryin out loud. I dont think I'll be able to watch Ben Hur again without laughing my ass off. Just really bad.<br /><br />But hey, if you like stupid westerns with acknowledged stars in the thing take a peek at Shoot Out with Gregory Peck. It's just as bad, but much funnier. 1/10

Just saw this tonight at a seminar on digital projection (shot on 35mm, and first feature film fully scanned in 6k mastered in 4k, and projected with 2k projector at ETC/USC theater in Hwd)..so much for tech stuff. 18 directors (including Alexander Payne, Wes Cravens, Joel and Ethan Coen, Gus Van Sant, Walter Salles and Gerard Depardieu, among several good French/ international directors) were each given 5 minutes to make a love story. They come in all shapes and forms, with known actors(Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman, Steve Buscemi ..totally hilarious..., Maggie Glyllenhall, Nick Nolte, Geena Rowlands ..soo good..and she actually wrote the piece she was in, Msr Depardieu and many good international actors as well. The stories vary from all out romance to quirky comedy to Alex Payne's touching study of a woman discovering herself to Van Sant and one of those things that happens anywhere..maybe? Nothing really off putting by having French spoken in most sequences (with English subtitles) and a small amount of actual English spoken, though that will probably relegate it to art houses (a la Diva.) Also only one piece that might be considered "experimental" but colorful and funny as well, the rest simple studies of sometimes complex relationships. All easy to follow (unless the "experimental" one irritates your desire for a formulaic story. Several brought up some emotions for me...I admit I am affected by love in cinema...when it is presented in something other than sentimentality. I even laughed at a mime piece, like no other I have seen (thank you for that!) The film hit its peak, for me, somewhere around a little more than half way through, then the last two sequences picked up again. Some beautiful shots of Paris at night, lush romantic kind of music, usually used to good effect, not just schmaltz for "emotions" in sound, generally good cinematography, though some shots seemed soft focus when it couldn't have meant to have been (main character in shot/scene). Pacing of each film was good, and overall structure, though a bit long (they left out two of what was to be 20 films, but said all would be on the DVD) seemed to vary between tones of the films to keep a good balance. Not sure when it comes out, but a good study of how to make a 5 min film work..and sometimes, what doesn't work (if it covers too much time, emotionally, for a short film.) Should be in region one when released, but they didn't know when.

Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended.

This is a case of a bunch of people thinking they are so clever they have a story that fits the time. Remember the all-around political conspiracies caught on camera in the years leading to the Watergate and a little later? Most movies trying to cash in on made-for-TV 'o so powerful, o so mind numbing' conspiracies were in fact caught in their own navel-gazing attitude.<br /><br />I was never a fan of The Conversation which I find as much dated as others conspiracy stints of the time but Coppola was true to his main character and Hackman was a pretty engaging actor to observe. I mean these conspiracy movies are mostly drowning in the character pool of noir heroes. Lots of questions unanswered, lots of dis-communication... Well this takes at least Bergman to build a movie about such un-visual bases.<br /><br />The Next Man is a perfect example of its time: one political soup served with an idealistic character and an horrendous conspiracy tightening its web around him. Neither part is interesting in itself and the whole doesn't get any better. In fact you can tell how much it will be bad from the very first sequences piling up 'watcha that' murders without ever advancing any storyline. Pedestrian directing at its worst as most of the movie is one pompous accumulation of scenes revolving around violence naively brought under the viewer's eyes.

In our household, we are enormous fans of A Christmas Carol and watch virtually every version each Christmas, including the old 1938 Reginald Owen and the modern 1999 Patrick Stewart. Our overall favorite is the 1951 black & white classic, because Alastair Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge and his conversion rings the truest. However, this 1984 rendition has its own unique merits and makes a lovely & entertaining story, quite faithful generally to Dickens' novel. (See my comments on the other film adaptations, if interested)<br /><br />First of all, George C. Scott can certainly seem pretty crotchety and doesn't make a bad Scrooge. I adore his sideburns, his long topcoat & hat. He cuts the finest fashion figure of the lot, and quite a handsome gentleman. However, sometimes it seems Scott is enjoying his role as Scrooge just a wee bit too much and not taking it quite as seriously as he ought!<br /><br />This rendition has the best overall Christmas atmosphere, hopeful and optimistic. Somehow you know this story is going to have a happy ending. Filmed in the town of Shrewsbury, England, it just seems somehow very British. The film has a lovely musical score, with wonderful, lively caroling music throughout all the appropriate portions of the tale. Sometimes I could almost smell the chestnuts roasting and the pudding singing in the copper! <br /><br />Marley's anguished ghost (with his wonderful jaw dropping scene) and the three Spirits are all quite convincing. Christmas Past is a lovely ethereal lady, Christmas Present wonderfully giant and jovial, Christmas Yet To Come shrouded and foreboding as always. However, I found Scrooge's nephew, Fred, a wee bit quiet & grim, not nearly as jolly & hearty as he should be. I like the nephew's wife, whom they've named Janet, with her lovely, sprightly period hairstyle. Instead of blind man's bluff, they've concocted a game called Similes for the nephew's Christmas dinner party, which is a cute little touch, Scrooge getting right into the spirit of the thing.<br /><br />The Cratchits and their somewhat meagre (though much appreciated) Christmas dinner are well depicted, with Bob (David Warner) suitably sympathetic and long-suffering in his miles of scarf. Mrs. Cratchit is charmingly portrayed by Susannah York, who also starred with George C. Scott in the wonderful 1970 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Above all, this version has unquestionably the best Tiny Tim, not only an adorable & endearing little waif but sickly. With those dark circles under his eyes, the frail wee thing looks unlikely to survive the hour!<br /><br />This is a delightful & heartwarming version of the holiday classic. With its festive atmosphere, it's sure to put you in the spirit of the season.

This rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made.

Unreal "movie", what were these people on?? A mix of French Upstairs Downstairs, mating horses,porn (not suggested, its pretty full on for a film) & bestiality with a bit of Benny Hill music & chase scenes thrown in, its sounds crazy & its even more so to watch. **spoiler** It plods along in a tedious fashion for quite a while,.... then a Lamb does a runner, prompting woman in period dress to run off after it, she goes into the woods where she is set upon by an erect "penis" attached to a man in a bear/rat manky suit, I put it like that as its obvious the "penis" is in charge & gets way too much screen time, ejaculating for the most of it, anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out she liked a bit of bear/rat tadger & thats about it, the rest is just padding. **end spoiler** A film made to shock & offend, thus getting talked about, any publicity is good publicity I suppose,a waste of time really, but the "main event" has to be seen to be believed, its hard to imagine that anyone thought it was a good idea as they filmed it.

This was not a good film. Poorly scripted and acted - the concept was not new, the effects poor and not a showcase for Arnold Vosloo who really is a half decent actor. I watched this under some protest and only remembered having seen it before towards the very end - it's that forgettable. The acting seemed to consist of a number of glares & looks devoid of any sincerity. I kept expecting this to actually get going and before long I was just hoping it would finish. As for the medical bits - well I wasn't expecting a true version of ER events but this was just comical - I am a Dr so know what I am taking about - and the operative bits were just plain silly.<br /><br />Do not waste your valuable time - unless you have absolutely nothing else to do - go out, ring up a long lost friend, watch paint dry, sort out your sock draw, do some household task. AVOID at your peril.

I found the documentary entitled Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control to be a fairly interesting documentary. The documentary contained four "mini" documentaries about four interesting men. Each one of these men was extremely involved with his job, showing sheer love and enjoyment for one's job.<br /><br />The sad part, I must say, would have to be the subjects in which these individuals worked/studied. They were interesting for about five minutes, afterwards becoming boring and lasting entirely too long.<br /><br />The video was filmed in a very creative way though. I very much enjoyed the film of one thing with a voice dub over another. It played out excellent and also coincided nicely with the music.

First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.<br /><br />First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.<br /><br />Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!<br /><br />Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!<br /><br />Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!

Interesting story about a soldier in a war who misses out on saving the life of a young girl from the enemy and is haunted by this event, even though he did save many other captive children. The film flashes a head and this soldier is now a teacher in a high school that is managed mostly by policemen patrolling the hallways, bathrooms and even class rooms. In other words, the High School is a prison and most of the kids pay very little attention to their teachers or principal. Dolph Lundgren,(Sam Decker) plays the soldier/school teacher and decides he is going to quit teaching and go into another field. However, the principal asks him to have a Detention Class as his last duty as a teacher. It is at this point in the film when all Hell breaks loose and the story becomes a complete BOMB. Try to enjoy it, if you decided to View IT !

I was able to watch this movie in its entirety and was deeply moved by it. I wasn't sure if it was really a comedy or a drama - it had elements of both. Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper both looked wonderful - our image of 60-year-old women has certainly changed since Aunt Bee! They are vibrant, beautiful, sexy! The only drawback in this movie was that there was absolutely no mention of other characters in either the "MTM" or "Rhoda" shows from the 1970's. I'd have thought that since it was set in New York City (where "Rhoda" had been set) that at least some mention would have been made of her sister Brenda or that Julie Kavner would have appeared, assuming of course she was still in the Big Apple.<br /><br />It is my hope that ABC will make this a series and bring back for guest appearances all the old casts of these shows. By the way, what was wrong with CBS doing this reunion, or an eventual series? Wasn't that the network that carried the "MTM" and "Rhoda" shows?

This is one of the finest TV movies you could ever see. The acting, writing and production values are top-notch. The performances are passionate with Beverly D'Angelo superb as the older woman with a teenage daughter and Rob Estes simply perfect as the young stud boyfriend. However, the best part of this film was how it showed the consequences of sexual abuse instead of going for the usual happy ending. It showed that abuse can happen in good families; involve good people; and wreck lives. It is thought provoking and entertaining. Congratulations to all concerned with this exceptional movie.<br /><br />

I think this is one of the best movies of all time. I just think it shows realistically what romance and especially black romance is all about. Would love to know what others think as well. The acting was just out done. Where is Tate anyway? It has been awhile since I have seen him in anything, however I think he has out did his acting performance in this movie!

I first saw this one when it was first shown, so I'm not too objective about it. It really managed to scare me, partly because it was so late at night, but partly because of that whole feeling from a videotaped suspense story (the same thing that helped Dark Shadows itself). And the casting was so right. I hardly know Shane Briant from anything else, so it might not be so right to call HIM "well-cast," but to me, he IS Dorian Gray. And as far as the other male actors, the one who fit his part so well was Nigel Davenport (who's so good at "larger than life" characters) as Sir Henry. And John Karlen, a sort of Dan Curtis "repertory player" at the time, because of Dark Shadows. As one poster points out, this version manages to include the involvements with men, in a fairly subtle way. The scene where Dorian recites a list of men's names to John Karlen's character, as a way of blackmailing him, and the look on Karlen's face, were very well-done. (If that scene were done now, it would probably be done in a TOO OBVIOUS way, and be bad by comparison.) I saw it when "Dorian Gray" was barely a name to me, let alone more, so even more than the famous 1945 version (which is rightly famous), this is THE version to me.

Guy Kibbee gives the viewer a lot of laughs. Like most candidates, he knows almost nothing. Warren William, a very, under rated actor, is superb in giving instructions to Kibbee; that is, he teaches him to say something which means nothing to the voting public. A campaign based on no comment, "I'll take it under advisement," and "Maybe yes, but then again, maybe no," is the nearly perfect way to win an election. Succinctly, the dumber the candidate, the greater the chance he or she will win. After all, the public can identify with such a person. With respect to the movie, it makes for a lot of comedy.

I know many people have a special fondness for the Alistair Sim version of Dickens' story, but for me, this 1984 version is the one to beat. My wife and I own a copy of this film on VHS, and we watch it together every Christmas Eve. I often remark that we could watch it on Halloween too, because it's a very creepy ghost story.<br /><br />Scott--typecast as Scrooge--is shudderingly mean and nasty, making his transformation all the more miraculous and moving. I think it's up there with his performance in Patton. The spirits are all effective, each one creepier than the last. Watching the dark, floating, skeletal form of the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come sends shivers down my spine every year. And what a supporting cast! David Warner, in particular, is in top form as Bob Cratchit, as is Susannah York as his wife. <br /><br />I seem to recall that this version sticks closer to the original story than most others--but I may be mistaken, as it's been several years since I read it. Regardless, this is a terrific Christmas classic.

This is a film where the actors are all fine, especially Brigitte Bako and Erik Palladino, in a film where every one of the three couples meet in a situation that feels verrrrry forced to be either cute or to set the story in motion. In other words, it feels like they are contrived movie scenes, not like real life. Even if women who work at peep parlors ever go out with one of their customers, it just doesn't seem realistic at all the way it is written in this film. Also, when one of the characters meets the overweight woman in the film, it feels artificial, the way they look at each other seconds after arguing. Again, the actors are all good, and moments of this film are nice, but overall yet another indie that could have used some rewriting before production got rolling.

Most people are totally unaware that this movie exists. Fox, which paid Judge to make it, has kept it in the can for quite awhile and then spent nothing to promote it. I guess that made many people think it was one of the garbage movies being flushed in late summer. Well, I am here to tell you that this is a funny and rather frightening look at a future that is not that hard to believe. Basically, Judge puts forward the notion that the stupid are outbreeding the smart by a wide margin. Then these stupid are getting more stupid, by basically spending all of their time watching TV and having sex, which produces more stupid people. By 2500, a person of average intelligence today, will appear to be a genius, that talks "all faggy." Seriously, is this really that hard to believe. Oh sure, this future is painfully funny and ridiculously stupid, but still plausible. Luke Wilson is great as the time traveling army guy, hopelessly trying to get back to a more comfortable time. Where this story will gain its cult status is with the numerous funny one-liners, like "can we family style her" and "hey man, I'm 'bating here!" This is a funny movie and a rather sharp social commentary on an American society that seems to be fatuated with self pleasure, comfort and stupidity, and I guarantee you that I will be buying this on DVD the first day it comes out and watching it over and over.

From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it! <br /><br />But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.

As an ex-teacher(!) I must confess to cringing through many scenes - 'though I continued to watch to the end. I wonder why?! (Boredom, perhaps?) :-)<br /><br />The initial opening scenes struck me as incredibly mish-mashed and unfocussed. The plot, too, although there were some good ideas - the plight of a relief teacher, for example - were not concentrated enough in any one direction for 3-D development.<br /><br />Not one of Mr Nolte's finer moments. As to young Mr Macchio, does he speak that way in *every* movie?<br /><br />Plot and acting complaints aside, the hair-styles alone were a nostalgic (if nauseating) trip.<br /><br />

"Little Man", now on DVD, is a Wayans Brothers flop. It's the tale of a smaller than a midget criminal played by Marlon Wayans, who hides a diamond in a lady's purse after a heist. He and his partner Tracy Morgan cook up the genius plan to disguise Marlon as a baby and plant him at the lady's home. He then goes through all sorts of "Home Alone" or "Child's Play" like mayhem to get the jewel back and be treated like a baby. I was surprised by how low the humor was in this film. The jokes have been done in other places so many times, that they aren't cute or funny. I almost think the movie might have been funnier if they didn't use CGI and used the small actor who Marlon's face was pasted over. In watching the deleted scenes (minus CGI) this actor was funny in a Mini-me like way, but they chose a different route. A few cameos and Tracy Morgan make some funny scenes..Spend your rental fee $ on Borat if you want some real laughs these days.<br /><br />http://mcmusicnotes.blogspot.com

After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL <br /><br />The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf<br /><br />This movie is a tedious exercise<br /><br />The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock <br /><br />The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes<br /><br />Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL<br /><br />Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay

This is a very light headed comedy about a wonderful family that has a son called Pecker because he use to Peck at his Food. Pecker loves to take all kinds of pictures of the people in a small suburb of Baltimore, Md., and manages to get the attention of a group of photo art lovers from New York City. Pecker has a cute sister who goes simply nuts over SUGAR and is actually an ADDICT, taking spoonfuls of sugar from a bag. There are scenes of men showing off the lumps in their jockey's with grinding movements and gals doing pretty much the same. It is rather hard to keep your mind out of the gutter with this film, but who cares, it is only a film to give you a few laughs at a simple picture made in 1998.

As one other IMDb reviewer puts it, "...imagine 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert" and you wouldn't be far off from a brief summarisation of what to expect from this piece of cinema (I deeply hesitate to use the word "film"). A lecture on philosophical views on creationism, the mythos surrounding humanities existence, the before and after, that was has been, the what is and the what will be. This for some maybe a "2001" on sand, but they tackle different philosophical viewpoints, one about evolution and the future, the hope and potential for mankind, while Fata Morgana itself is a somewhat more metaphysical trek. I only hope I can convey it effectively enough.<br /><br />Herzogs style will not to be everyones liking, and those who are not of a perceived hardcore branch of cinematic viewing may, and most likely will, find this extremely hard going, and may not even see it through to its finale after 72 minutes. Fusing together a montage of footage from the Sahara, including villages, villagers and various other places for a somewhat surrealist ending, music of various genres and an almost mythical narration, Fata Morgana is severely slow paced but ultimately hugely rewarding. <br /><br />Opening with a montage of various filmed shots of planes landing for nigh on five minutes, you already arrival at the introduction of the film immensely confused, and the sense that this will not be like anything you have seen before echoes clear in your mind. Divided into three sections, creation, paradise and the golden age, Fata Morgana attempts, and succeeds, in being able to juxtapose images of the natural beauty of the desert with the man made instruments that taint it. Its three segments are narrated by different persons each pertaining specifically to the particular section they are voicing and provide extra emphasis on the long soliloquy's and desert montages.<br /><br />Fata Morgana is a film dealing with the existence of man on our Earth. It looks at the natural beauty the Earth was designed for, and concurrently looking at the potential beauty we have within us, more notably shows us our negative contributions to the world in which we live. Each shot has been purposefully constructed, using what can only be described within the context of this film as 'The Holy Trinity Of Filming' in pictures, words and music. Each part of these three pieces provides something notably to each shot, but when brought together they create something greater than the whole of their parts, they create unbridled beauty and deep thought within our minds. I will not be able to do this film the justice it deserves with mere words alone, perhaps if I had pictures and a score, and I do know this will not be appreciated by the masses, but this a profound and I will not use the term "art film" because this is simply just art. This is moving art which moves the mind and stirs the soul. Whether or not creationism is your want is irrelevant, because this film is about intelligent design.

I loved this. It starts out as a fairly normal, slightly ponderous French art movie and then all of a sudden, halfway through it's turned on it's head. This part is brilliant as you realise you have been watching 2 plots not one. Sadly, the ending doesn't make much sense, which is a great shame. Oh yes, and it's brilliantly filmed.

Wish it would be released, as I would love to see the finished product! We saw the unfinished version before it came out. Loved all the characters and actors. Anyone know if it is out on video yet? Would love to see it again.Definitely worth renting if it's not going to be shown in the theatre. I had a hard time finding it because they renamed it.

Watching film i was in very light mood and also this film is light but the end of the film is just unexpected which leaves a long lasting memories in one's mind.<br /><br />movie starts with Abhay and his profession of being witness during registrar marriage. Soha comes for marriage and his boyfriend doesn't, leaving Soha alone on to the street she cant go back home and she don't have any thing to live on here in this situation Abahy turns out to be a helper for her, this is the base of story.<br /><br />The rest is just watchable and the end of the story is bitter sweet that Abhay has to face which keeps you at the edge of the seat.<br /><br />Dialogues and music are good songs are OK direction is good and so as the screenplay you do feel that movie is slow but looking to the demand of story it is all right.<br /><br />A truly watchable especially with light mood i enjoyed this at home with coke and peanuts. my rating for this is 8/10

I know it sounds crazy but yes, I am a huge fan of House Party 1 and 2 (and proud of it!!). I hated part 3, and then here comes part 4. I was like are you kidding me with this? Kid 'n Play are nowhere to be found in this movie, and that would've been okay, had they not foolishly entitled the movie House Party 4, as if it was in any way, shape, form, or fashion related to its predecessors. Every time this movie comes on late at night on USA, I shoot my TV with a rifle. Quite frankly, it really is just that atrocious. *hurling*<br /><br />As the only remaining fan of Kid 'n Play that will actually admit to being a fan (tee hee hee), I was appalled. Remember that stupid little boy group Immature? They snuck their way into House Party 3. Okay, fine and well but how can part 4 be just about them and nothing else and it also seems like they're not even the same kids from part 3. *confused!!!!* House Party fans: do yourself a favor and stick to House Party 1 and 2 and Class Act. Beyond that, everything else is ridiculous.

And my children love it now! Granted, I can watch it now and realize the animation wasn't that great, and that the plot is trite. Hey, if every villian introduced themselves by saying "I ammmmm DAAAARRRKK HEEEEAAARRT" I think they might be laughed at, but for young children it is a moral story with catchy music.<br /><br />Music so catchy, mind you, that I still had the words memorized after not seeing this film in twenty years. I would definitely suggest this one for younger children.

Most people, when they think of expressionist cinema, look to the b&w German films of the silent and early sound eras--films that emphasized canted angles, extreme contrasts of light and dark, exaggerated performance, and occasional uses of surrealism to create a dreamlike atmosphere in order to diverge from traditional, naturalistic modes of cinematic representation. If we're willing to accept that the Germans were not the only filmmakers to create expressionist cinema (and that those above-mentioned characteristics are not prerequisites for expressionist film), then I would argue that Dodes'ka-den (DKD) is a prime example of this type of film. <br /><br />Like Dreams, DKD is a little unhinged for a Kurosawa film, dabbling, as it does, in the unreal. However, DKD is also, unlike Dreams, a great film and probably my favorite Kurosawa picture. Why? Mostly, I think, it's the colors. This was, I believe, Kurosawa's first color film, and the man saturates the movie with vibrant primary colors, creating a completely unreal contemporary Japan. We are used to the neon lights and gleaming Tokyo skyscrapers; we are not used to a city that appears to have been colored with crayons. <br /><br />DKD is, as I said, a peculiar film inasmuch as many of its characters live in a junkyard, appearing to live in an alternate universe. That is, I think, the point--these are the Tokyo outsiders, the people left behind during the great move forward following World War II. The film also represents one of Kurosawa's more heartfelt movies; there is genuine sentiment here and genuine pathos (such as when the boy's father describes their dream home). It's an amazingly moving film from a man better known for stunning, John Ford-like vistas and samurais. Everyone should have known Kurosawa had in him a movie as touching and thought provoking as this (Ikiru foreshadows the emotional resonance of this film in many ways). <br /><br />I will also argue, to the last, that this is Kurosawa's greatest achievement. His samurai films, though capable pictures, pale in comparison to works by Kobayashi (Hara-kiri is the greatest, most intelligent samurai film committed to celluloid). Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Ran are all fine films, but they're merely good (and, frankly, I think that word is too generous for Hidden Fortress and Kagemusha). DKD is a great movie, as is Ikiru. They are the crown jewels that show Akira was not a one-trick samurai pony. They reveal his artistry and mastery of cinema.

This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole "Little Man" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a "Black Comedy". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!

Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.<br /><br />Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.<br /><br />What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean.

Well this movie is amazingly awful. I felt sorry for the actors involved in this project because I'm sure they did not write their lines. Which were sometimes delivered with slight sarcasm, which lead me to believe they were not taking this movie seriously, nor could anybody who watches this obnoxious off beat monster slasher. While watching this " Creature Unknown" I could not help but think that there was not much of a budget or a competent writer on the crew. But, if you go into watching this for a laugh you'll be happy, the movie is shameless to mocking itself because i cant see how anybody could look at this and be proud of pumping this straight to DVD clichéd wanna be action thriller/horror movie fightfest to light.

Someone, some day, should do a study of architecture as it figures in horror films; of all those explorations of weirdly laid out mansions, searches for secret passageways and crypts, trackings of monsters through air ducts, and so forth. Offhand I can recall only a few films in which architecture played a major role throughout--"Demon Seed," "Cube," the remake of "Thirteen Ghosts"--but it's at the heart of every story about a spooky house or church or crypt; it's all about the character and the affect of spaces, passages, and walls. So I was looking forward to this thriller where it promised to be central. The idea is this: An architect has built--actually, rebuilt--for himself a huge and rambling house; his wife has just left him, mainly because of his own self-centeredness, but also, it is intimated, because she can't get used to the place since he remodeled it. Living in unaccustomed solitude (real this time, rather than virtual), he comes to suspect that somebody else--a stranger who had come to the door one evening asking to use the phone and then suddenly disappeared--is living into the house with him; only the place is big enough so that he never sees him.<br /><br />This is a good start for a melodrama, whose development one would expect to follow some such lines as these: After searching the house for the intruder a few times without success, the architect resorts to his blueprints to undertake more systematic searches, trying in various ways to surprise, intercept, or ambush the intruder, maybe by means of some special features he built into the structure. Meanwhile the intruder has discovered hiding places and back ways between places that the architect didn't foresee or doesn't remember. The movie would turn into a cat-and-mouse game, a hunt, a battle; and finally, in trying to trap the intruder, the architect himself would end up trapped in his own creation, in some way he didn't expect. Then he would be forced to think himself out of it--and maybe at the same time out of his own self-imposed isolation--and in a final twist would nail, and maybe even kill, the ****er.<br /><br />Nothing like this happens in this movie; the house is just a house, the architect is just a guy, and his nemesis is of an unknown character, if he exists at all. Here is what does happen in the movie: Once the intruder is installed in the house--if he is--the architect begins hearing noises, but when he goes to investigate finds nothing. He calls the police, they think he's slightly nuts; he persuades his estranged wife to spend the night, she thinks he's more nuts. At last, more or less accidentally, he runs into the intruder (doesn't get a good look, but figures, who else could it be?--not a hard question, in a story with, to that point, fewer than three principal characters), whereupon he locks the doors, lowers the grills on the windows, throws away the key (I don't know why he thought this necessary), and leaves his victim to starve. I missed why this was a given: the doors and walls are made of steel? In any event, the architect takes to sleeping in his car. And since the idea of the movie has languished undeveloped and cannot now be developed further, something else must be devised to take its place. And this is it: The architect--are you ready?--moves into the house of the man who (presumably) moved into his, and lives there in the same way. How is this possible? It is not, but the movie takes this route to try and make it seem so: The architect has drawn a picture of the man who came to his door; and when he leaves the house he takes the picture with him; and while sitting in his car, he throws the picture into the street; and two kids pick it up and observe that it looks like Martin, their neighbor; whereupon the architect asks where his house is and the kids point the way.<br /><br />If this sequence seems to verge on the implausible, what ensues plunges right in. The architect takes up residence with Martin's wheelchair-ridden wife, unbeknownst to her; so stealthy in his moves and so cunning in his reading of his hostess that he's able always to leave a room just as she enters or to duck out of sight just as she turns around. Throughout this section the movie is clever in one way, making (or leaving it to the viewer to make) the point that his life with this stranger, who doesn't know he's there, is in essence the same life he lived with his wife, as a virtual recluse with her as a convenient buffer. But at the same time, his inability to live in the world makes his transformation into Raffles the cat-burglar entirely incredible. Not to go into the series of twists at the end--including another murder achieved by locking someone in behind another invincible door--this one in front of a landing so flimsy that it collapses under the weight of a wheelchair; two nice people who take murder in stride; and (before the story started) the unnoticed construction of a tunnel under several houses.... To the final, long-anticipated twist, the movie adds another, to make it even more offensive, and then...ends.<br /><br />Here is a story that depends on the development of two things--the idea of the stranger in the house, and the character of the man whose house it is--and fumbles both. The first fumble makes it boring; the second made me angry, as it pushed its main character farther and farther along a more and more zigzaggy path, and never offered any explanation for the character who most required one: Martin the tunnel-builder and sneak-tenant. The story should be redone by someone, some day.

If not the best movie ever made, "Babette's Feast" is certainly among the most loving. This is a wonderful exploration of the meaning of artistry, generosity, loyalty, and grace. Humor is mixed with tender longing; characters are treated with searching honesty but also deep respect. There are meditations here on memory, fate, old age and faithfulness. Marvellous camera work by cinematographer Henning Kristiansen: seldom have wrinkled faces looked so luminous in the candle-light. The meal is accompanied by delicious period music, Brahms, Mozart and simple folk hymns. Enjoy this feast for the eyes and the spirit, for as the General says: "Mercy and truth have met together, and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another."

"Happy Days" was produced and broadcast from the mid-1970's to the early 1980's and seems to get more ridiculous with age. At the time of its broadcast, most viewers who grew up in the 1950's were in middle age with families, and the scenes at Mel's Diner probably brought an artificial nostalgia to them. The Fonz was of course the coolest of the cool (although the actor Henry Wrinkler to this day has never learned how to ride a motorcycle). Richie Cunningham was the all-American blond-haired kid who would probably be elected student body president. Potsie was Richie's best friend--the star of the show has to have a best friend, I guess. And Ralph Malph was the bumbling sidekick to the Fonz, if not the entire group. I loved it when the Fonz would beat up on poor Ralph Malph. And there was Mel, the middle-aged lug who ran Mel's Diner. And of course who could forget the appearance of Mork? Was this really the 1950's? Ironically, films produced during the 1950's, such as "Rebel Without a Cause" and "The Wild One" have gotten better with age and portray the period more honestly than this show which was produced 20 years after the period it portrays.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the TV show "Happy Days" is not in the same league as "Rebel Without a Cause" or "American Graffitti" for that matter. "Happy Days" may have captured some aspects of the 1950's with its burger diner, juke boxes, cool cars, and tacky plaid shirts, but it is more a nostalgic idealism done strictly for laughs rather than an honest portrayal. "American Graffitti" had something to say about young Americans in the 1950's whereas "Happy Days" seemed more about what middle-aged people of the 1970's wished the 1950's had been like. The result was a kind of watered down fabrication that really has nothing to do with the 1950's. "Happy Days" is, at best, a comedy-fantasy with some of the artificial culture of the 1950's as its backdrop. As pointed out by another reviewer, the all-American kid Richie Cunningham would probably have been chastised for befriending the likes of a drop-out like Fonzie. And Mel would probably forbid Fonzie from entering his Diner.<br /><br />A quick history: "Happy Days" was originally a pilot called "Love in the Happy Days" that was rejected for broadcast. Comedy pilots that had themes concerning sex and romance that did not make it to pilot airing sometimes appeared on the infrequently broadcast show "Love American Style" which was often aired in place of baseball games that had rained out or other unexpected programming cancellations and/or alterations. In short, "Love American Style" was a throw-away show that contained all these one-episode comedy pilots that never made it to a slotted debut. "Love in the Happy Days" did appear as a "Love American Style" show sometime in the early 1970's, but at the time TV executives could not foresee how a show about 1950's young people would be popular, particularly during the hey-day of comedy shows centering around middle-aged people, such as The "Mary Tyler Moore Show" (and its subsequent spin-offs such "Rhoda"), "The Bob Newhart Show", and "All in the Family". (How things have changed since now most TV sitcoms are about young people and the industry avoids most shows about middle-aged people like the plague!) <br /><br />Subsequently, one of the young stars of "Love in the Happy Days", a child actor from "The Andy Griffith Show" named Ron Howard, got the chance to star in a film about young people taking place in 1959 called "American Graffitti" directed by the relatively unknown George Lucas whose previous "THX 1138" had bombed miserably at the box office. Even when it was premiered to movie executives, again the studios could not see how a movie about young people in the 1950's could become popular because it didn't "fit" with what had been popular in the past, although they didn't realize that much of the movie-going audience had been young in the 1950's. As everyone knows, the movie was a huge hit, and studio executives recognized that they had completely misjudged their audience. Somewhere during the theatrical run of "American Graffitti", TV executives realized they had a comedy pilot in their vault that was a lot like "American Graffitti". They brought it back with the original cast, plus Henry Wrinkler as "The Fonz", re-titled it "Happy Days" and the rest is TV history as it became one of the most popular shows of the 1970's.<br /><br />"Happy Days" now seems ridiculous. The characters are flat and cardboard, never being more or less than what they superficially are. The issues they deal with are trivial. And their reactions appear mindless and even silly. Nowadays, the character of the Fonz seems to be a caricature of, well, The Fonz. Was the idea to be a kind of parody of Marlon Brando's character in "The Wild One"? Looking on the show with fresh eyes, I feel the producers really missed out on a great opportunity to present the 1950's with depth and realism that still could be fun and entertaining. Instead the producers decided on cheap laughs for quick bucks. This is definitely a show that has not withstood the test of time. "American Graffitti" has many of the outward appearances of "Happy Days" but it had an edge. It had an honesty about the characters and their issues. "Happy Days" took the look of "American Graffitti" but failed to take its heart.

Comedies often have the unfortunate reputation of having little real depth. Arms and the Man, proves that notion to be false. Shaw's play is full of comedic drama, combining an entertaining plot with true philosophical depth.<br /><br />On one level, Arms and the Man is a successful, and somewhat unique, romantic comedy. The young, melodramatic, and superficial Raina comes from a military family deeply involved in a war; her fiancé and her father are both military officers. She is shocked, one night by the arrival of an enemy soldier. She rescues him, knowing that she'll have to keep the incident a secret from her family forever, and the soldier eventually leaves. Of course, once the war is over, that soldier comes back, forcing each of the primary characters to reevaluate their values and their relationships.<br /><br />It is quite interesting how Shaw layers meaning within the rather standard comedic plot. Shaw manages to comment on class constructs, on the absurdity of war, and even on the nature of love. And, of course, he does this with the Shavian wit and within a satisfying plot. There is so much here to think about that I think a lot can be missed in a single viewing. Arms and the Man is excellent comedic theater and is definitely one of Shaw's best works.<br /><br />"Arms and the Man" is both an amusing and thought-provoking movie that retains its relevance even today, more than a century after it was first conceived. Shaw mocks at the popular theories on war and love and combines a military satire with a taunt on love and family structure. The play has flashing wit, buoyant humor and bitter sarcasms. A good example of Shaw's dialog is the statement by Captain Bluntschli to Serguis: "I'm a professional soldier: I fight when I have to, and am very glad to get out of it when I haven't to. You're only an amateur; you think fighting is an amusement". Indeed as a Swiss hotel-keeper's son, Bluntschli had no reason to be involved in war and it is in this absurdity that Shaw questions patriotic sentiments. Shaw explores the whole concept of war and the military from both sides of the struggle and in the end shows that the feelings in both camps are not that different.<br /><br />The dialog and sarcasm used towards the common notions of life are entangled with a gentle assurance of the movement of the story towards a fairytale ending. The end where all characters are rendered happy and lovers change and love shifts is what underlines the essence of this drama as a comedy. This is a movie that sustains its image of possessing a universal appeal and is still appropriate today when the concepts of war and patriotism and love and marriage have changed dramatically. Shaw's "Arms and the Man" should maintain its relevance as long as there is love and war.

Loved this movie, what a hoot. Rupert and Julie are great together with Rupert being almost poker faced against Julie's animation, which worked well. Laura did a good job as the overbearing mother.Julie of course is marvellous as usual. While this movie will keep you laughing most of the time it also has a poignant side to it as it unravels the secrets in the lives of the main characters. Interesting that it was entitled Driving Lessons as this might lead you to believe this is the main feature of the movie which directly it is not though it certainly could be seen as "Ben" finally being in the driving seat in his own life. Like most things that are funny in life there is always the sad side and there are some moving moments in this movie. Very enjoyable movie and well worth watching.

Its a sin how these things are made, but then again we wouldn't get to see the best "Dummy scene" ever filmed. Ahhh the beauty of low budget Bigfoot flicks, you lean to see the beauty the more you watch them, thats if your brain doesn't melt first. As I said before, this has the best dummy scene ever! Words cant express it, you have to see it for yourself. Wonderful lines such as "Smells like decain flesh", "Thems human..."(You will know this one when you see it) The creature makes a Blah, Blah! sound and the scene where the baby gets shot will make you cry(with laughter) you will be rewinding it. Has a car chase, snowmobile chase, a Bigfoot folk song as well as a Disco song. It dosn't end there, while watching the credits a friend noticed "Wardrobe provided by K-Mart". You ask, how could you even get as far as the credits and then watch them? I could only explain this as a sort of shock to the brain, you are so mentally exhausted you cant move and also I guess you have to know who was behind the mess. All that being said, this is a must see especially if you want to punish yourself mentally. Its a keeper!

Is it a coincidence that Orca was made two years after Jaws? Orca isn't exactly a "Jaws rip off" but it is obvious that it tried to profit from Jaws's success. First of all Orca in my opinion was a bad movie, not terrible but definitely not good, average at best.<br /><br />The plot is basically a male killer whale (orca) after seeing its mate and its unborn calf killed by a fisherman seeks revenge. I couldn't stand to watch this movie again. The direction of this film is poor and when compared to Jaws it looks like the director, producers, and writers were almost talentless.<br /><br />As for the acting, it was very average and believable, however the actual characters aren't the least bit likable. The effects were alright for its time and the footage of the killer whale looked pretty good.<br /><br />The violence is confusing, bloody, and not recommended for more sensitive people. The music is overdone and very loud, drowning out the sound effects and irritating at times. I hated the way they exaggerated the intelligence of the killer whale (killer whales don't mate with only one mate as depicted in Orca).<br /><br />Overall this movie was bad/poor in my opinion, because of the reasons listed above. Some people may appreciate this film more because of the concept of vengeance amongst animals and humans so I'm not going to bash this movie and I can understand why some people may like it.<br /><br />My Rating: 3.5/10 (but for its concept possibly a 5/10)

I'm sure this is a show no one is that familiar of and might not think good of it; after all it is almost close to Baywatch Hawaii. With the cast, the location, style of the directing and its publicity – shows women walking around on the beach and all that. No wonder people have misconception and decide not to watch it.<br /><br />It was wrong of them to do that. Cause after I decide to watch the show, there are actually more thing going on, real juicy story and conflict, turn out to be really exciting to watch and pretty much – addictive.<br /><br />The story of the hotel clerks, the manager, the owner and their complicated love life. Also enter the troublesome hotel's visitor and powerful man trying to steal the hotel. It actually more exciting than it sounds here.<br /><br />I won't deny that the acting suck but it ain't that bad that you'll look away. The story is not so consistence but good enough. The soundtrack is fitting pretty well with the scenario and the action is all the time. I took me couple of episode before there is actually anything happen solidly so be patience.<br /><br />Recommendation: I Really Do Enjoy Watching This. Zillion Times Better Than Expected.<br /><br />Rating: 7.5/10 (Grade: B)<br /><br />Please Rate My Review After Reading It, Thanks.

I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.<br /><br />A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz. <br /><br />The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.

First things first, the female lead is too gorgeous to be missed. Now actress Wang Zu Xian, the one who played Xiao Qian in the movie, is 42 years old and well aged. It's always good to review these glorious times when seeing old-school HongKong productions like this.<br /><br />The movie is one of the most influential titles made in 1980s. The art set decoration and other aesthetic facets are all mesmerizing. More fantastically the movie had a total black humorous undertone in it. It feels like a horror movie but ultimately it's not scaring, but only fun.<br /><br />I had the experience of translating the second script of "A Chinese Ghotst Story", and I thought that script was a decent write. However when I saw the movie, I firstly was disappointed in seeing the movie different from the script, like in a smaller scale and involving more comic roles. However, it turned out to be better executed in terms of being entertaining.<br /><br />If you have seen the Lord of the Rings, you will notice the similarities in this movie to LOTR. The climax is like a mirror of Miranda Otto fighting with the Ring Witch. It's definitely a laugh-out-loud. Bravo!

Preston Waters is off to a bad summer. Besides his birthday coming up, nothing else looks promising.<br /><br />First he has to share his own room with his brothers who are going to run a business. They can't do it in their rooms because they don't have enough space. Off to a birthday party he only gets $6 tokens while others get $32, $35, and even $50. When one of his birthday cards comes early, he only gets a check made out for $11.<br /><br />Going to the bank he learns he needs $200 at least to start an account. Leaving the bank, a bully steals the check. Pursuing after the kid nearly gets him run over (definately his bike gets ruined) by a criminal named Quigley (played by Miguel Ferrer). Quigley's just come from the bank too from giving the owner $1,000,000 to give to this guy tomorrow. Quigley starts to write a check for the damage, but only succeeds in writing his name before a police car circles the area. Afraid, he gives Preston the check, informs him to give it to his dad to finish out.<br /><br />That evening though, Preston tells his dad that he doesn't want a new bike, he wants his own room back, better yet his own house. His father confines him to his room for the rest of the evening. Moping in his room Preston figures things can't get any worse he realizes that he forgot about the check as it's still in his shirt pocket. It's blank.<br /><br />Using the computer and after careful consideration, he makes it out for $1,000,000. The next day, while trying to cash it at the bank he's taken to the owner who thinks he's the person he's supposed to give the $1,000,000 and does. He's not though as the real person named Juice comes in a moment later.<br /><br />Now the three have to track Preston down.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Preston has fun buying all sorts of stuff including his own house and even going on dates with a disguised bank lady who's really and FBI agent (who's trying to track the 3 bad guys down). He makes this person up named Mr. Macintosh who he works for and even plans a party for him on his birthday.<br /><br />But eventually things catch up (the money runs out, the bad guys get him).<br /><br />Overall, a pretty funny flick. Miguel Ferrer plays his role very good. If you enjoyed him in Another Stakeout, you'll love him here. He does all sorts of wicked crazy things.<br /><br />Rick Ducommun (the stressed out boss from Ghost in the Machine) plays a wonderful friendly chauffeur in this movie.

Though not a fan of Sam Rockwell, I was surprised when I saw his name in the credits in the opening of 'Joshua.' Heck, I wasn't even aware he was in 'Joshua' until I started the movie. So it goes without saying, I was watching the movie on the basis of the movie, not the leads. A sort of 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'The Omen' or any other demonic kid movie 'Joshua' was billed. Unfortunately, it fell flat. Slow, incredibly slow, and flat. Yet, I continued on to see how this would all resolve, hoping beyond belief, the ending climax would shed some light on the subject. Okay, I admit, it did (a wee bit) but what a stale closing. And what a low-low budget movie, or at least that's how they designed it. A person falls – you don't see the drop, you see someone lying down in what appears to be blood. A person gets hit by a cab – you don't see it, you see someone complaining, holding a bike up. I'm not sure if this is called "style" or laziness or simply, lack of funds for special effects. We have a "rich" family with a crazy mom, a workaholic father attempting to balance everything, a kid – Joshua, who may/may not be the antichrist and a new born baby girl who cries a lot. She cries as much as we see how many days she's alive – and what was that about? Are there rats above or is it Joshua? Is his mother nuts? Is Joshua crazy? Is he merely jealous of the newcomer to the family? Is he going to grow up to be Michael Myers? Or does he drive his family to the brink? I don't think so. They were nuts prior, and no "so-called" acting could make me believe otherwise. Unfortunately, barely any questions were answered, barely any open doors shut. I'm sure that might have been the idea, but for Pete's sake, give me something. Anything. There are plenty better kid-gone-wild movies to explore. Joshua's more like the Mini-Me of the antichrist.

Sony Pictures Classics, I'm looking at you! Sony's got the rights to Harry records -- you need to distribute the film and you'll get radically increased sales of his back catalog! Anyhow, this is a great study of a fascinating musician, woefully underknown, full of great stories, greater music, and it could have been 3 hours longer and I'd have loved it even more. Saw it at the American Cinemateque Mods & Rockers Festival at the Aero Theatre in Santa Monica, where it played to a packed house. They were turning people away at the door! I went to many of the Mods & Rockers festival films, and let me assure you that no other film came even close to selling out, let alone turning people away. See it in the theatre, buy the DVD, and make sure some slow-on-the-uptake company [*cough SONY cough*] picks it up ASAP!

When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you.

I don't normally write reviews, but this "film" was special. I couldn't turn it off. I don't believe I've ever seen a worse movie, but there I sat, watching. It was like a horrible car wreck with blood flowing all over the highway. It was disgusting, but I couldn't turn away. Where do I start? The movie seems to think it's a sports thriller, but it's so utterly ridiculous, it can only be a comedy, but it's not funny, not even in a dumb/silly way. It's like watching your cousins try to act out a skit on family get-togethers. It's painful to watch, but at least it's only for a minute or two. Second String went on for over an hour. <br /><br />Whoever was involved with making this movie should not work again. The writing, directing, acting, and everything was just terrible. The problem is I can't describe how bad it was; you just had to see it. And I'm sure this will NEVER be shown again, so unless you saw it, you're out of luck. I mean it was almost worth seeing just for the fact that it gave me some appreciation for every other "bad" film I've seen over my lifetime. And for every film I see in the future that I can't stand, I will think to myself, well, at least it wasn't bad as the Second String.

Spoilers of both this and The Matrix follow.<br /><br />I liked the original Matrix a great deal. It was not a deep movie, despite Fishburne's attempts to philosophize, but it was fairly well paced, fun, and I have a soft spot for Hong Kong fights.<br /><br />In the original, Neo was the secret life of the rather unhappy cube worker Anderson. By day, corporate drone, and by night, brave hacker. Eventually, he eventually is forced to choose between these lives by his actions - does he become an outlaw fighting the machine, or does he go back to the safe, forgettable world he started in. Interestingly, he discovers that once one is shorn of illusions, life rather sucks. He has his girl by his side and his boon companions, but he eats processed swill, dresses in sweats, and lives in a truly skungy bit of machinery. Still, the truth makes him free.<br /><br />At least part of the fun of that first movie lay in the "what if it were me" questions raised in the viewer's mind. What if _I_ were capable of the impossible? What if I were "The One". It does not even matter that much what you are The One example of, with a cool title like that.<br /><br />Further, agent Smith made a wonderful bad guy, as he embodied all of the fear of authority that we carry with us. He was as unstoppable as a terminator, and as merciless.<br /><br />At the end of the Matrix, Neo must return to the Matrix to share his good news of freedom.<br /><br />This movie fails to completely to carry through on the ideas of the original movie, and it does so with such lack of gusto, such poor scriptwriting and such poor editing that I cannot believe they had planned these changes. When the dialog is at a fifth grade level, with various long words dropped in randomly, I find it hard to believe that they understand what they are saying.<br /><br />My short list of characterization failures:<br /><br />The Oracle goes from mildly helpful, if deceitful to utterly obstructionist without any real reason.<br /><br />Major "personalities" of the matrix are introduced without need - the keymaster, for example, was a cute idea, but just not that interesting a character.<br /><br />Fishburne loses his "advisor" role, and gets nothing to replace it with.<br /><br />The people of Zion are not particularly likable, nor would you really _want_ them running the world.<br /><br />Special effects problems:<br /><br />The fight scenes are pointless and intermitable. In The Matrix, you felt Neo could lose, and that he had to become something greater in order to survive. In The Matrix Reloaded, he is merely the viewpoint character of a particularly poorly plotted video game.<br /><br />The fight on the freeway looked quite fake, and not that interesting.<br /><br />Pacing problems.<br /><br />As I mentioned above, the fight scenes were interminable.<br /><br />The rave went on too long - everyone in my row at the theater was looking at their watch. Not because we mind good dancing and good orgies, but because we did not know about the people pictured, nor did we care.<br /><br />Whatever hack wrote the creator's soliloquy should be blacklisted from the business. It meandered, used words that the scriptwriter clearly did not understand, and was a waste of time and a pacing killer. The creator's speech could have been done in a tenth the time, and with more peril as "Zion exists to give rebels a place to go so they do not destroy the Matrix. There are now too many people who do not believe; the matrix is in danger of crashing and killing every person hooked up to it. Further, the earth cannot support even the people in Zion, let alone these others. You may choose one person from Zion to form the new Zion, while I wipe the memories of the people currently in the Matrix."<br /><br />Instead, we got a long, drawn out bunch of twaddle. If someone argues that it is deep, ask for a transcript, and try breaking down the sentences. Each one is too long by several clauses, and uses words with clearer, shorter synonyms.<br /><br />So, in summary, not worth seeing.<br /><br />I have seen the third one, and despite what a number of reviewers have said, skip it. It does not save this turkey.<br /><br />The reviewers who feel that the second and third movies were "deep" should go see some truly deep movies. Perhaps read a book or two on rhetoric and debate, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. This movie is just not hard to understand, but it is hard to stomach.<br /><br />Scott

This doesn't quite plumb the depths of Creepshow 3, but it comes close. It also uses the same technique of using some of the same actors in multiple roles throughout the anthology, which is distracting to say the least.<br /><br />It also rather irritating rips off The Twilight Zone (with the bookshop being comparable to Serling's later Night Gallery). Unfortunately, the producers & writers forgot that Serling would build up sympathy for his characters before messing them over. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic or interesting until the last segment.<br /><br />Framing story: Adam West is... well, himself. He doesn't go the Bruce Wayne/Batman campy 60s route, but he rarely does. He simply plays the not-particularly-enigmatic "Jay" (there's an ominous spine-chilling name to compare to the likes of Dr. Terror, Eramus, and The Cryptkeeper), and makes some mildly awkward/creepy statements.<br /><br />Abernathy: Seen Rod Serling's "A Stop in Willoughby"? Then you've seen this. The red herring of the nutso wife is introduced to no purpose, but even the main character's friend identifies him as a wimp. As well directed as can be expected, but basically incoherent.<br /><br />Nex's Diner: Reminiscent of various Serling time travel stories, mixed with Steve Allen's "A Meeting of Minds." Most of the actors aren't too bad (except for Josh Astin as Cassius, who manages to walk, talk and even breathe awkwardly), and the idea is mildly interesting. But like Abernathy, it doesn't go anywhere. The main character raises some relatively reasonable questions, bugs out a bit (who wouldn't?), and for some reason he ends up banished to a nuclear wasteland.<br /><br />Life Replay: Not a bad little piece, and manages to predate both Click and Creepshow 3. I suppose it says something that people are fascinated by the magical properties of remote controls. The main character is mildly sympathetic. Nothing substantially innovative here, but it's okay.<br /><br />Fighting Spirit: You see the twist coming a mile away but like the main character, it has some heart and it's a decent story of defeat and redemption.<br /><br />Finale: So... why do people end up in cold storage in silver lame suits? Don't know. And doesn't make sense. So... all the protagonists wandered into the bookstore and became trapped? Kinda undermines the happy ending with the boxer (thanks, guys!), and the guy in the first segment died. So how did he get trapped? Did he visit the bookstore before he died, got trapped and... didn't die? What? Huh? I supposer this isn't expected to make sense because it's supernatural. But still...<br /><br />Overall: basically not dissimilar from the two newer Twilight Zone series, or some episodes of Tales From the Darkside or Monsters. The last two stories and part of the second are probably worth your time. But there's nothing really spectacular here.

I caught "Sorrows Lost" at the New York Film and Video Festival and I guess I had some high hopes for this film. Sadly, this is just another Visual FX calling card. The story is pretty lame. The bad lighting and camera work, along with the less than great editing and music all make the film seem low quality.<br /><br />Is it really too much to ask that FX shorts have better stories and have the rest of the technical production be on par with the FX! You can't just get away with cool FX in shorts anymore, it's been 5 years since "405" made a big splash. At least that short quick, cool and was even a little funny! None of that can be said about "Sorrows Lost."

I've just seen this movie for the second time on television. It's lovely, warm, sentimental, very very romantic. I've rarely seen actors better able to reveal by their movements and gestures love for another -Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal, Robert Downey,Jr. and especially Mary Stuart Masterson simply outdo themselves. Masterson probably has the hardest role and is just adorable. <br /><br />The movie is in the vein of both romantic movies such as While You Were Sleeping, When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seattle and the "high gimmick" sorts of movies like Big, Back to the Future, Peggy Sue Got Married. I hate to say this, because this cast was superb and I'd never change any of them- but I think it didn't succeed as well as the movies mentioned above because the box office appeal of the cast was just not as great as Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks, Michael J. Fox, and Kathleen Turner at the time the movie was made.<br /><br /> It's not superbly written - e.g., the characters' lines are not particularly memorable. Yet it's executed to perfection. <br /><br />The romantic yearnings are truly palpable, the "feeling" of people falling in love is exquisitely communicated, love's timelessness and all-encompassing sweep, the feeling of loss and desire to recapture that connection, are so touchingly delivered. Again and again, you will find yourself moved. Actually, a comparable movie is Made in Heaven -the same romantic yearning.<br /><br />Do see this - it's lovely.

I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.

The brilliant Australian comic genius Barry Humphries had a rare failure with this uneven, and occasionally distasteful comedy, which was snatched back from release after only a few days. Drunken, lecherous Australian diplomat Sir Les Patterson accidentally sets an Arab potentate on fire at the UN and is posted to his tiny country as punishment, arriving just as a palace coup puts a new leader (American soap star Thaao Penghlis) on the throne. Sir Les, with the reluctant help of Dame Edna Everage (Both played by Humphries) almost accidentally foils a scheme by the new leader to release a deadly, disgusting, AIDS-like virus on the Western World. Joan Rivers has a cameo as the female President of the United States, her desk plate reading "President Rivers"! Extreme bad taste mingles with slapstick and Humphries' usual scathing satire in a film which is more enjoyable in it's many funny parts, than taken together as a whole. Dame Edna's TV fans may be puzzled by the presence of a different Madge Allsop, sadly, one who lacks Emily Perry's wonderful drab comedy magic in the role. The film was written By Humphries & his third wife, Diane Millstead, and directed by the Mad Max man himself, George Miller. For die-hard Humphries fans like myself, essential. All others, beware.

This show is painful to watch ...<br /><br />It is obvious that the creators had no clue what to do with this show, from the ever changing "jobs", boyfriends, and cast. It appears that they wanted to cast Amanda Bynes in something ... but had no idea what, and came up with this crappy show. They cast her as a teen, surrounded by twenty and thirty somethings, and put her in mostly adult situations at repeatedly failed attempts at comedy. Soon, they realize that she needs a "clique" and cast people in their late 20s to try to pass as teenagers.<br /><br />How this show survived 4 seasons is beyond me. Somehow, ABC has now decided that it is a "family" show, and thrown it into it's afternoon lineup on ABC Family.

Some may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.

I watched this movie based on the good reviews here, and I won't make that mistake again.<br /><br />The first couple minutes shows that a group of people have been brought together by some tragedy, but you don't see what it is. Flashback 12-hours and we get to see the boring lives of each of these people, which in the end are totally meaningless to what is about to happen. When the ending is finally reveled, you realize that you just wasted an hour of your life waiting for a big payoff that doesn't happen and means nothing to what you have been watching. The only connection these people have is that they have all had a "bad day"--but even that continuity gets lost in the boredom.<br /><br />If this was supposed to be a "Crash" clone, it's a complete failure.

I never expected such an old film to be as impressive as this 1930 western turned out to be. The scenes of the pioneers heading west in their covered wagons, encountering storms and mud, river crossings, Indian attacks and every manner of trial and danger, are astonishing in their rugged believability. Much of the film was shot outdoors, and the movie has a truly epic feel about it. The actors must have experienced much the same conditions as the original pioneers did, and the results are astounding. The wagons, the clothing, every single detail looks and feels right. The characters are simple but believable, with a straightforward story ,that travels like the wagon train to its destination.<br /><br />John Wayne is slim and youthful in one of his first roles, as the scout leading the wagons, and he does a fine job as the idealistic young frontiersman. He's up against a marvelously scurvy trio of villains, including Ian Keith as a slick gambler, Charles Stevens as a Mexican sidekick and Tyrone Power, Senior, as the growly, bear-like trapper. Power's bearded, snarling, larger than life portrayal is both comic and menacing. I keep picturing him with a bandanna, gold hoop earring and black eye patch, with a parrot on his shoulder, as he grunts and growls various threats and insults. His character could easily be transferred to a pirate ship with no difficulty at all. He nearly steals the whole picture.<br /><br />Tully Marshall is delightful as a wily old frontiersman who is Wayne's best friend. The lovely Marguerite Churchill makes a spirited heroine, whose initial meeting with Wayne is a hilarious mix-up, resulting in a long running courtship consisting of insults and feigned indifference on her part, to aw shucks persistence on his. The results are quite humorous and one is glad to see them finally get together at the end.<br /><br />The scenery is amazing, with the wagons crossing real prairies and having to be lowered by ropes down cliffs. Indians who are clearly the genuine article, and not white actors in makeup, appear as both friends and foes, and are treated with dignity. Wayne's character tells an admiring group of young boys that the Indians are his friends, who taught him everything he knows about survival in the wilderness.<br /><br />The Big Trail is an uncomplicated tale told well by a talented cast and crew. It will probably appear naive to many modern viewers, but there is a quiet dignity about it that never lets it become corny. There is a great deal of intentional humor, including a rowdy rascal of a pioneer, who makes loud animal sounds from hiding , every time the smooth gambler Ian Keith tries to con the beautiful heroine into marrying him. His flowery speeches about the plantation he allegedly owns are interrupted by very realistic imitations of yowling cats and quacking ducks, causing the would be seducer to look around in annoyance for the unseen creatures.<br /><br />Highly recommended, both for western fans and lovers of old movies in general. This is truly a classic film for the ages.

Its not sophisticated, and nobody in the credits had a great career, but taken as a whole, because there are no famous personalities; the film seems more realistic than some high budget, well cast films.<br /><br />A film made for a few bucks, that is worthy of watching should give hope to all those would be film makers and wantabee actors.<br /><br />The problem with this film is it was made in the worst possible time. TV was taking over the revenues of the film industry, and this film could have easily been shown on TV. In 1950, all the fare on TV would qualify for a "G" rating. The film industry began to make more "adult" films that could not be shown on TV during the days when TV wouldn't dare show the sex and skin of today's commercials.

that kid a is such a babe; this movie was no Titan A.E.(of which it is in many ways modeled after) but still came off as entertaining, the fact this lost to a piece of monkey crap like Tomb raider makes wanna cry; includes some of the most entertaining characters i've seen in disney film

I'm a fan of this generally excellent though sometimes rather dull show but Season 3 has taken some terrible plot directions. The episode HERO is an example of what I mean.<br /><br />The story as it eventually unravels is that the Cylons deliberately allow Bulldog - a pilot captured several years earlier during a black ops mission - to escape, steal a Cylon ship and get back to Galactica. The plan is that when Bulldog gets back he will figure out that Adama left him to his fate and be so enraged that he will kill Adama, which he very nearly does.<br /><br />Now the problem is this - the Cylons set it up so that Bulldog thinks he has escaped by himself. This means that Bulldog gets off the Cylon ship with no assistance. So he kills a Cylon and walks out of his holding cell - that much we see. Then, we must suppose that he walks to the flight hangar, manages to get into a Cylon fighter ship and learn how to operate it, takes off and flies back to Galactica. Just like that.<br /><br />Now Starbuck managed to get one of them working in Season One, which was barely believable in itself, but she only had to fly it visually out of orbit before making contact with Galactica. Bulldog has to programme his ship so that it makes several jumps through hyperspace and manages to catch up with Galactica somewhere thousands of light years away, in an unknown direction. How does he manage to programme a ship that contains completely alien technology? Cylons connect to their computers by touch, there are no visual consoles or keyboards. And having managed that miraculous feat, how does he then know where Galactica is, bearing in mind that Galactica took off some 3 years before and is trying ever since to evade the Cylons - it does not leave beacons behind? Even allowing for the suspension of disbelief that must apply to any sci-fi show, this episode still absolutely no sense whatsoever.

For every series that makes it to television, a 100 ideas are formed, 50 scripts are written, 15 pilots are made, and one, just one, actually makes it to production. From such a selection process, we are lead to believe that the final product must be the cream of the crop, for what other reason could so many ideas be rejected to give us a single television series.<br /><br />And so it goes with True Blood; all the stars were in alignment and what started as a series of novels was transformed into an idea, a screen play, a pilot, and finally a series. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be a long journey and along the way there are many turns that ultimately change what was good and pure into and show that production people feel would be best for ratings. Oh how wrong they so often are...<br /><br />True Blood is an example of a creative concept that has developed into one of the poorest story lines, worst acting, and silliest subplots as anything in recent television history. Its international cast of relatively unknown actors struggle to find their voices but keep tripping over their fake southern accents. Alan Ball's not so secret desires for Ryan (Jason Stackhouse) gives us a fresh nude shot each week although it often has nothing to do with the storyline. Tara's angry black woman characterization fails to connect and you find yourself secretly hoping the vamps take her out quickly before she goes into another speech about white suppression while attend a ceremony for the Glorious Dead of the Confedercy. Sam finds suppressed love for Sookie and suddenly we are to believe he needs to watch over her morning, noon, and night despite years of working with her and avoiding any such relationship.<br /><br />As for Bill the Vampire, his moral high ground is quickly surrendered at the first chance to make love with Sookie and has no issue with make a quick snack of her (although she remains somewhat unharmed). We find the other vampires not so mainstream as Bill but greatly desiring to become accepted by a public as they look at the living as Happy Meals with legs.<br /><br />Despite my best efforts of suffering through the first six episodes, I have come to the realization that no matter how long you watch a bad show, its still bad. Somethings die for a reason, even vampires. Maybe this show should to.

It's generally an accepted fact that Marcel Carné's 1936-1946 movies are masterpieces and it's considered polite to say that the rest are mediocrities.This is an unfair opinion:at least ,two of the latter era are eminently watchable:"Thérèse Raquin" ,his best post-war work,and "les tricheurs" (the cheats).<br /><br />There's a strange evolution from the Prevert golden hour to "les tricheurs":in "les enfants du paradis" "quai des brumes" or "le jour se lève",true love is thwarted by the villains. In "les tricheurs" true love does not exist anymore:we deal with a bunch of young people who believe in nothing;falling in love would be incongruous for this youth.The adults are not the villains at all:Mic's brother and mother are kind people ,but she is beyond their command.Very few grown-ups appear anyway.<br /><br />During two hours,the characters do not stop playing around,dancing,listening to jazz records(a music which was not still part of the bourgeois culture),and heavily drinking .When two of them discover they care for each others ,it will be too late.<br /><br />The cast is rather good ,Laurent Terzieff as an existentialist cynic and Andréa Parisy as a rich kid are the stand-outs.On the other hand,Pascale Petit and mainly Jacques Charrier(who married Brigitte Bardot the same year as "les tricheurs")do not possess the ambiguity their parts ask for.They are all smile,too sweet and to nice to be believable.<br /><br />Oddly,"les tricheurs" was labeled "nouvelle vague"!When you know what the priests of this cinema school (the likes of Godard)thought of Carné ,it's really a good joke.But this disenchantment you feel throughout the whole movie is really disturbing.

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.

Another fabulous movie from Catherine Breillat, this time about the difficulties of shooting a sex scene in a movie. Using comedy – a new genre for Breillat – we get a backstage view of filmmaking but in documentary style. The character who plays the director in the movie is based on Breillat, the sex scene in question is taken from her earlier film ‘A Ma Soeur' as is the main teenage actress. But the film, like all of Breillat's work, is not entertainment alone. It is peppered with philosophical observations on the nature of sexuality as well as demonstrating a devotion to ‘purity' (as opposed to pornography) that is a cornerstone of Breillat's work and a devotion to real emotion. We see the director character harangue the young lead actress and actor to bring the best out in them, hypnotising them into the parts they need to play, bringing out part of themselves that the director can see in them but they cannot see in themselves until they achieve the heights of acting that she demands of them. She makes meaningful movies, not titillation, but she shows the work that is needed to produce this, and so gives us insights both into the (decidedly French) film making process and the psychology of male – female sexuality.

I couldn't agree more with Nomad 7's and I A HVR's comments. A perfect laid back Sunday morning movie. The humor is subtle (exact opposite of "slapstick" as one misguided commenter noted).<br /><br />But what always ceases to amaze me is how often I find myself wanting to come back to this movie over and over. I originally copied this movie onto VHS about 12 years ago when it was premiered on one of those Pay Cable free weekend previews(HBO maybe?). Had never heard of it previously. Don't know why it wasn't marketed that well. ?? When DVD's were released en mass, it was one of the first movies I replaced. A great combination of cast and writing. Plus, the back drop of Montana wilderness doesn't hurt things either (beautiful).<br /><br />It's probably not the type of comedy for everyone, but what is? If Adam Sandler type stuff is up your alley, this probably won't be your cup of tea. This movie needs your full attention. The humor is mostly in the dialog.<br /><br />I believe my next viewing will probably be about my 12th. But I still know that when it gets to the scenes like the one where the hoods of the police cars start blowing off, I'm going to loose it (Ed O'Neill's face is PRICELESS!). Recommended 110%.

An extremely powerful film that certainly isn't appreciated enough. It's impossible to describe the experience of watching it. The recent UK television adaptation was shameful - too ordinary and bland. This original manages to imprint itself in your memory.

This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply<br /><br />pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds<br /><br />through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even<br /><br />briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason.

The film's executive producer is none other than that messenger of peace thru transcendental meditation, David Lynch, the director's father. I wonder what David's guru, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, would have thought of this production. The hypocrisy here is as repugnant as is the film itself. It's a safe bet that Samuel L. Dieteman, Phoenix serial killer and devotee of recreational violence, would have loved every minute of it.<br /><br />I doubt if many would fault this film for its cinematic craft; on that level it's quite good. But on a moral level, it's the most disheartening movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />SPOILER COMING<br /><br />I guess it's the phoniness of the thing that saddens me the most. Morally-numb Generation Xers learn a craft and a little post-modern aesthetic theory at art school or film school and then get involved in the arts-and-entertainment industry; and here's the result: a film which wallows in human suffering, injustice and carnage, much of which is witnessed by a nine-year old who sees her entire family brutally murdered by a couple of recreational-violence killers who, at the end, ride off into the sunset.<br /><br />NO MORE SPOILERS COMING<br /><br />For whom are films like this produced? Narurally, sadists are going to adore this - why wouldn't they? But who else? As I noted above, there's some really good film craft here, but good craft can be applied to any subject matter. Why apply it to stuff like this? Also, the movie is very suspenseful, but that's not because of the graphicness & grossness of the violence; it's suspenseful because it's well-directed & well-acted. I'm sure the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock could explain this much better than I can.<br /><br />So what has been put before us here? And above all, why? <br /><br />Yes, our world can be an ugly, dirty, even evil place, but shouldn't we dissent when an "artist" makes it her/his business to rub our faces in it? Or worse still, to stick it in the faces of those nine-year olds who will, one way or another, end up seeing this on home DVD? <br /><br />I hope that people will see to it that this film is not seen by their kids. Yeah, I know - dream on, bernon...

Whew. What can be said about Gymkata that hasn't already? This is nothing but pure halarity from beginning to end. If you want a movie that will keep you on the floor laughing, this is the perfect movie to get. From Cabot's wild-style mullet/sweater combo to Parmistan (and it's four billion assorted ninjas), everything about this film reeks of crap.<br /><br />Directed by Robert Clouse, the infamous mind that brought you the mirror scene in Bruce Lee's Game of Death, he once again showcases his complete lack of directing talent. A few other faces you most likely won't recognize will appear for your enjoyment as well, from Buck Kartalian to Tadashi Yamashita, although you won't remember them or care about them after the movie is done.<br /><br />Supposedly based on a book called "The Terrible Game," which, if I could find a single trace of it's existence anywhere I would be interested in reading it, to see where this thing went wrong. Instead, the book apparently is a figment of Gymkata's imagination. Probably something Clouse made up in order to sell his lame idea.<br /><br />Pick this one up and Yakmallah it for yourself. It is easily one of the best bad movies I have ever seen, and that is saying quite a bit.

Beautiful images, propaganda and history as toy. The ingredients of this film, good, interesting but with many shadows. Politicall shadows. Jefferson is more than the hero of a mythical America. He is silhouette of a vision about life and society, an extraordinary thinker, teacher of large part of North America. In film is only Superman. The delicate contour of ideas are crushed. The subtle birth of essential truth is forgotten. And Jefferson is basic instrument for create a good image of American realities. The end,triumphal and fake, romance and heroic, is gun suicide of a story who may be tall with more wisdom. And the war against "Avatar" is another gray stain. For one who heard nothing about Jefferson, movie is a good beginning. For the others - disillusion. It is like the precious silk of a tailor. But the tailor is fascinating about silk and the clothes are only ordinary cloth. So, a sad experience. Slices of beauty and boring lakes, patriotic lesson and the crush of expectation. A film who must impressive. And the ash of a story who could be magnificent.

Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.

If You can watch a film without worrying about the plot, or corny acting, then Backdraft is definitely the one.<br /><br />However, if, like me, you like watching films that you can believe, then Backdraft has some serious flaws. It doesn't offer anything new, and there are hundreds of 90's action films that follow identical formulas, whilst not being quite as clunky.<br /><br />After two firefights, i'm thinking, this has got to go somewhere else, i mean, how many big fires are there in one city? Surely firemen do other things, such as getting cats out of trees? Well I was wrong, and the repetition continues again and again, up until the end.<br /><br />A good aspect of the film is the fire itself, well filmed, and I must say i felt quite hot while watching it, which suggests that two hours of watching fire without a story or acting would have been more suited to my taste.

What another reviewer called lack of character development, I call understatement. The movie didn't bash one over the head with overexplanation or unnecessary backstory. Yes, there were many untold stories that we only got a glimpse of, but this was primarily a one-day snapshot into an event that catalyzed change in all of the characters' lives. Henry Thomas's performance was a really lovely study in the power of acting that focuses on reaction rather than action. Good rental.

Do not expect a depiction of the "truth". However, the accounts of these veterans of the Iraqi & Afghanistan wars demand thoughtful consideration. <br /><br />The major strength of the film is that it vividly portrays the words and war wounds of these vets and their post-war struggles to reconstruct some degree of normalcy and functionality to their lives. <br /><br />My major criticism of the film is twofold: it is one-sided and it advocates anti-war activism but nothing more to correct the serious shortcomings of the military's and Veterans Affairs' programs for helping those who've suffered and still suffer the traumas of war. These are NOT fatal flaws of the film.<br /><br />As a veteran myself, I know that the horrible aftermath of war is real, and these young men and women articulate it very well. These vets vividly describe the physical and mental pain and torment that most veterans experience and that ordinary people need to understand because the horrors of ALL wars are so traumatic and disturbing.

Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is. He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time.

As a kid I grew up with the chintzy 60's TV series (and no I'm not that old… POW!). However when director Tim Burton brought his novel vision to the silver screen, I simply took an immediate shine to it and never backed away from favoring his installments over the much hyped-latest additions ('Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'), which I don't really care for. Even if they're going for a much more grounded approach and wanting to explore Bruce Wayne/Batman psyche further… but in honesty I don't think there's all that much to tap in to. I wanted crazy fun with a dark streak and in my eyes that's what Burton brought across, and this is the reason why I can watch them over and over again. <br /><br />After wowing audiences with the 1989 'Batman', thanks to the gaudily Gothic art direction and Jack Nicholson take no-prisoners performance of the camped-up, but psychotic Joker. Burton would return 3 years later for the follow up and my favorite of the batman films so far; 'Batman Returns'. Camp, but well-done. In what would fair up to being even more expansive, louder, dreary, and nihilistic and having two villainous foes for the price of one. Enter the grotesque Penguin (with Danny DeVito magnificently going out on a limb) and the ravishing Catwoman (a steamy Michelle Pfeiffer who fills out the suit nicely) coming to spoil Gotham's party. Again Batman (an aptly brooding Michael Keaton is equally commendable and looks quite imposing in that bat suit… look at the eyes) plays second fiddle to the bad guys, but I always preferred this sober interpretation of Batman that gave him an ominously gloomy mystique, but also a wearing psychological complexity that never felt the need to force feed. And his turn of Bruce Wayne was well served too. Burton's illustratively atmospheric direction opens with his sleek Gothic style engraving an carnival comic book world filtered in with a splendid range of characters and vivid costumes. The moody narrative (in what probably is a tad too long) is more so symbolic in its progression, rather show-piecing its spontaneously arresting and extravagant set-pieces and sharply etched art direction covered with shadowy tinges and grey/blue neon lighting of a wintry backdrop. The magnetically free-flowing camera-work takes flight and Danny Elfman's stately spacious score balances the playfulness along with gloomy touches with a very hypnotic pull. The rest of the performances might be overshadowed, but Christopher Walken digs in his teeth into a smarmily glassy role of a two-faced businessman Max Shreck. Pat Hingle is back, but gets very little to do as Commissioner James Gordon and Michael Gough is delightful as Alfred. In solid support are Michael Murphy, Andrew Bryniarski, Vincent Schiavelli, Doug Jones and Peter Rubens also makes a cameo appearance.

New York City houses one man above all others, the possibly immortal Dr. Anton Mordrid. Mordrid is the sworn protector of humanity, using his magical powers to keep his brother and rival, Kabal, chained up so that he may not enslave the human race. Well, wouldn't you know it? A prophesy comes true and Kabal breaks free, and begins collecting elements (including platinum and uranium) for his alchemy experiments. With the help of a police woman named Sam, can Mordrid defeat his evil brother? "Dr. Mordrid" comes to me courtesy of Charles Band in the Full Moon Archive Collection. I had not heard of it, which is a bit odd given that I'm a big fan of Jeffrey Combs (Mordrid) and the film isn't that old. But now it's mine and I can enjoy it again and again. The film certainly is fun in the classic Full Moon style. Richard Band provides the music (which doesn't differ much from all his other scores) and Brian Thompson plays the evil Kabal. We even have animated dinosaur bones! What more do you want? Of course, the cheese factor is high. I felt much of the film was a rip-off of the Dr. Strange comics. And the blue pantsuit was silly. And plot holes are everywhere (I could list at least five, but why bother). And why does the ancient symbol of Mordrid and Kabal look suspiciously like a hammer and sickle? Combs has never been a strong actor, so he fits right in with the cheese. These aren't complaints. Full Moon fans have come to expect these things and devour them like crack-laced Grape Nuts. I'm guilty... I loved this film.<br /><br />If you're not a Full Moon fan, or a Jeffrey Combs fan... you may want to look elsewhere. But if you like the early 1990s style of movie-making and haircuts, you'll eat this up. Stallone and Schwarzenegger fans might like seeing Brian Thompson as a villain, looking as goony as ever and not being able to enunciate English beyond a third grade level. I did. I wish there was a "Mordrid II", but the company that makes a sequel to practically everything (is "Gingerdead Man 3" really necessary?) passed on this one.

The last of the sequels,not counting Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein which was more or less a spoof.this time count Dracula (John Carridine)takes center stage seeking a cure for his vampirism from a kindly doc(Onslow Stevens).well good ole Larry Talbot(Lon Chaney Jr)shows up also seeking a cure.the good doc succeeds in curing Larry's werewolfism,but Dracula tricks the doc and ends up contaminating his blood and makes the good doc a crazed lunatic.oh and all this time big Franky(Glenn strange)lies on a table awaiting his electricity fix so he can wreak some havoc.this was kind of a short movie,around 70 minutes and some change,but the action is there,and the great actors are there as well.Lionel atwill turns up as a police inspector,heres some trivia,Lionel atwill appeared in son of Frankenstein,ghost of Frankenstein,Frankenstein meets the wolf-man,and house of Frankenstein. and then this one.if there was another in the series they May have added the creature from the black lagoon to the line up,I'm giving house of Dracula 8 out of 10.

A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.<br /><br />A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.<br /><br />The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.<br /><br />This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act.

This has got to be the worst movie I have ever seen. The part where they loose there daughter? with the poltergeist overtone rip off? just pushes it over the edge with stupidity. I watched it on showtime so it still had the cheese soft-core porn scenes in it. I have to say it made me laugh my ass off. The 80's 3d effects were very out of place. Included an invisible cat and a spinning vortex. Wow I wonder if the people who made this actually feel accomplished in life. The actress who plays the wife looks familiar but sucks anyhow. Her screaming could be used as a torture device in hell for more than retired Nazis. Anyways thank you showtime for the super crappy horror movie. I will always enjoy the time I watched the biggest waist of time and money I have ever seen.

One of the best records of Israel's response to the murder of Rabin.Extremely true and natural, it captured the spirit of the nation.Especially important was the response of young people to the trauma of Israel's loss and the feeling that we shall overcome.

This is by far one of the best biographical films of recent times. I'll go so far as to put it up there with Ray and The Aviator. It is the story of a young, bi-racial boy who lives in a boarding house run by the amazing Miss Rachael aka "Nanny". You will fall in love with Nanny, a woman who gives all of herself to those around her. S. Epatha Merkerson brings the character to life beautifully, and the other cast members are do the same. If I were to praise each actor for the way they played their roles, I'd have to mention everyone in the entire cast. <br /><br />The music in this film perfectly blends with the story, almost dictates the way it goes. And what's more, this film is actually entertaining. It won't bore you at all, not even for a minute! <br /><br />I highly recommend this film to anyone wanting to spend an evening at home watching a very smart, very entertaining, quality film.

In War, Inc we find the logical extension of the current outsourcing of all war-related activities we are currently doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you are familiar with the antics of Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root and Blackwater overseas you are already halfway home to fully appreciating the satire of Cusack's latest piece. Cusack plays a corporate hit-man named Brand Hauser who finds himself in Turiquistan organizing a trade show in the newly liberated country as his cover while waiting to get access to his latest target. While there he finds himself intrigued by the anti-establishment reporter played by Marisa Tomei and pursued by the over-sexualized pop star played by Hilary Duff. We are introduced to Hauser's past, which includes a tragedy that has haunted him ever since and the corporate assistant named Marsha Dillon who actually is running the entire operation for him (and played hilariously by Joan Cusack). While some moments are played suitably over the top, they aren't always the moments you expect and the little touches often catch you by surprise. All the principals turn in solid performances. Duff's accent comes and goes but otherwise she does a very nice job and goes a long way to dispel her Disney image. Tomei is funny but understated while the Cusack's own nearly every scene they are in. To be fair, they are given good material. The writers turn in a good script with enough twists and turns and visual gags to keep you giggling throughout all the way to the predictable conclusion. In fact, the predictability of the end is the only thing that keeps me from rating it higher as the story twists and turns it's way to the expected conclusion.<br /><br />If you like your comedy broad and physical, there is probably not enough here to keep you interested the entire movie. On the other hand, if you like sly comedy and broad satire, this is for you.

..that separate good, memorable movies from movies like this. Its not entertaining, touching, funny, interesting and at times feels a little sub-human. The principals act like they are other-worldly, in the worse way, when they are supposed to be relating to each other and the audience. <br /><br />Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).<br /><br />They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..<br /><br />Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it. <br /><br />Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on. <br /><br />The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4/10.