Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

In 'Brave New Girl,' Holly comes from a small town in Texas, sings 'The Yellow Rose of Texas' at a local competition, and gets admitted to a prestigious arts college in Philadelphia. From there the movie grows into a colorful story of friendship and loyalty. I loved this movie. It was full of great singing and acting and characters that kept it moving at a very nice pace. The acting was, of course, wonderful. Virginia Madsen and Lindsey Haun were outstanding, as well as Nick Roth The camera work was really done well and I was very pleased with the end (It seems a sequel could be in the making). Kudos to the director and all others that participated on this production. Quite a gem in the film archives.

The last person who dies before New Years, is cursed to drive the Phantom Carriage for a whole year, picking up the souls of the dead.<br /><br />I saw a scene from this old silent Swedish horror film on Youtube, and decided to track down the whole movie. It was well worth the work finding it, because it's an absolutely amazing movie for the time it was made. It has a wonderfully eerie atmosphere. The old time horror film makers really knew how to create the perfect atmosphere. Sadly, many of today's film makers don't seem to understand how important setting and atmosphere are, and go for the cheap jump scares. The visual effects are excellent, considering its date of production. If you can find a copy of this, I highly recommend giving it a watch. 9/10

I've seen this movie on several different occasions. I find one of the funniest things to do is to just watch the reactions of the different types of people who go to see it.<br /><br />Type 1: OLD PEOPLE. A lot of old Japanese men and women go to this movie because they think it will be a honest-to-goodness samurai movie with lots of swordplay and medieval Japanese dialogue. As soon the two protagonists begin debating horror movies while inserting expletives almost randomly throughout their sentences, the old people walk out, usually disgusted.<br /><br />Type 2: FILM SNOBS. These people think that just because a movie bears the label of 'Independent' that it will automatically be a load of hard-to-follow, overemotional crap that may or may not be in English. Yet they see it anyway just to sing praises about it later so that people will think they are intelligent and cultured. They are really in for a surprise when they see this film. As soon as the blood begins to squirt exaggeratedly from anime-inspired sword battles or the over-the-top villain nonchalantly pegs a dog with his crossbow during a phone conversation, these people will be so dismayed, they will walk out. A few will stay just to see 'how bad it will get' and later they'll rave about what a horrible film it was to their friends.<br /><br />Type 3: PEOPLE EXPECTING TO SEE LIVE-ACTION ANIME OR MATRIX-LIKE SPECIAL EFFECTS. Sorry folks, the martial arts are pretty solid in the film, but director Yamasato really doesn't have the budget for that kind of thing.<br /><br />Type 4: PEOPLE WITH NO EXPECTATIONS. These are the people who really enjoy the film. Whether they had only heard of Blood of the Samurai, picked it at random, or stumbled into the wrong theater in an alcoholic haze, these are the people who will laugh at all the jokes and appreciate the movie for what it ultimately is: ENTERTAINMENT. This movie was not made to enlighten or to provoke deep spiritual thought, it was meant (if I may borrow a line of dialogue from the film) to 'really kick some ass.' And that's what it does.<br /><br />So depending on what type of person you are, you may or may not enjoy this film; however, if you appreciate the movie for what it is and can enjoy an excess of blood and acting, then go see this movie and make sure to bring your friends.

I thought that ROTJ was clearly the best out of the three Star Wars movies. I find it surprising that ROTJ is considered the weakest installment in the Trilogy by many who have voted. To me it seemed like ROTJ was the best because it had the most profound plot, the most suspense, surprises, most emotional,(especially the ending) and definitely the most episodic movie. I personally like the Empire Strikes Back a lot also but I think it is slightly less good than than ROTJ since it was slower-moving, was not as episodic, and I just did not feel as much suspense or emotion as I did with the third movie.<br /><br />It also seems like to me that after reading these surprising reviews that the reasons people cited for ROTJ being an inferior film to the other two are just plain ludicrous and are insignificant reasons compared to the sheer excellence of the film as a whole. I have heard many strange reasons such as: a) Because Yoda died b) Because Bobba Fett died c) Because small Ewoks defeated a band of stormtroopers d) Because Darth Vader was revealed<br /><br />I would like to debunk each of these reasons because I believe that they miss the point completely. First off, WHO CARES if Bobba Fett died??? If George Lucas wanted him to die then he wanted him to die. Don't get me wrong I am fan of Bobba Fett but he made a few cameo appearances and it was not Lucas' intention to make him a central character in the films that Star Wars fans made him out to be. His name was not even mentioned anywhere in the movie... You had to go to the credits to find out Bobba Fett's name!!! Judging ROTJ because a minor character died is a bit much I think... Secondly, many fans did not like Yoda dying. Sure, it was a momentous period in the movie. I was not happy to see him die either but it makes the movie more realistic. All the good guys can't stay alive in a realistic movie, you know. Otherwise if ALL the good guys lived and ALL the bad guys died this movie would have been tantamount to a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon. Another aspect to this point about people not liking Yoda's death.. Well, nobody complained when Darth Vader struck down Obi Wan Kenobi in A New Hope. (Many consider A New Hope to be the best of the Trilogy) Why was Obi Wan's death okay but Yoda's not... hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Another reason I just can not believe was even stated was because people found cute Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers to be impossible. That is utterly ridiculous!! I can not believe this one!! First off, the Ewoks are in their native planet Endor so they are cognizant of their home terrain since they live there. If you watch the movie carefully many of the tactics the Ewoks used in defeating the stormtroopers was through excellent use of their home field advantage. (Since you lived in the forest all your life I hope you would have learned to use it to your advantage) They had swinging vines, ropes, logs set up to trip those walkers, and other traps. The stormtroopers were highly disadvantaged because they were outnumbered and not aware of the advantages of the forest. The only thing they had was their blasters. To add, it was not like the Ewoks were battling the stormtroopers themselves, they were heavily assisted by the band of rebels in that conquest. I thought that if the stormtroopers were to have defeated a combination of the Star Wars heros, the band of rebels, as well as the huge clan of Ewoks with great familiarity of their home terrain, that would have been a great upset. Lastly, if this scene was still unbelievable to you.. How about in Empire Strikes Back or in A New Hope where there were SEVERAL scenes of a group consisting of just Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the Princess, being shot at by like ten stormtroopers and all their blasters missed while the heros were in full view!! And not only that, the heroes , of course, always hit the Stormtroopers with their blasters. The troopers must have VERY, VERY bad aim then! At least in Empire Strikes Back, the Battle of Endor was much more believable since you had two armies pitted each other not 3 heroes against a legion of stormtroopers. Don't believe me? Check out the battle at Cloud City when our heroes were escaping Lando's base. Or when our heros were rescuing Princess Leia and being shot at (somehow they missed)as Han Solo and Luke were trying to exit the Death Star.<br /><br />The last reason that I care to discuss (others are just too plain ridiculous for me to spend my time here.) is that people did not like Darth Vader being revealed! Well, in many ways that was a major part of the plot in the movie. Luke was trying to find whether or not Darth Vader was his father, Annakin Skywalker. It would have been disappointing if the movie had ended without Luke getting to see his father's face because it made it complete. By Annakin's revelation it symbolized the transition Darth Vader underwent from being possessed by the dark side (in his helmet) and to the good person he was Annakin Skywalker (by removing the helmet). The point is that Annakin died converted to the light side again and that is what the meaning of the helmet removal scene was about. In fact, that's is what I would have done in that scene too if I were Luke's father...Isn't that what you would have done if you wanted to see your son with your own eyes before you died and not in a mechanized helmet?<br /><br />On another note, I think a subconscious or conscious expectation among most people is that the sequel MUST be worse (even if it is better) that preceding movies is another reason that ROTJ does not get as many accolades as it deserves. I never go into a film with that deception in mind, I always try to go into a film with the attitude that 'Well, it might be better or worse that the original .. But I can not know for sure.. Let's see.' That way I go with an open mind and do not dupe myself into thinking that a clearly superior film is not as good as it really was.<br /><br />I am not sure who criticizes these movies but, I have asked many college students and adults about which is their favorite Star Wars movie and they all tell me (except for one person that said that A New Hope was their favorite) that it is ROTJ. I believe that the results on these polls are appalling and quite misleading.<br /><br />Bottom line, the Return of the Jedi was the best of the Trilogy. This movie was the only one of the three that kept me riveted all throughout its 135 minutes. There was not a moment of boredom because each scene was either suspenseful, exciting, surprising, or all of the above. For example, the emotional light saber battle between Luke and his father in ROTJ was better than the one in the Empire Strikes Back any day!!!<br /><br />Finally, I hope people go see the Phantom Menace with an open mind because if fans start looking for nitpicky, insignificant details (or see it as 'just another sequel') to trash the movie such as 'This movie stinks because Luke is not in it!' then this meritorious film will become another spectacular movie that will be the subject of derision like ROTJ suffered unfortunately.<br /><br />

Dustin Hoffman's debut feature isn't as bad as it's reputed to be; a Spanish/Italian co-production filmed in Italy with the director using the pseudonym 'Dan Ash'(!), the film is uneven but generally diverting and deals with a plethora of shady characters in search of a $1,000,000 hidden by gangster Cesar Romero (who, despite being third-billed - after Elsa Martinelli and Hoffman himself - expires before the credit sequence has even rolled!).<br /><br />Hoffman's performance, obviously, is nowhere near as nuanced as in later films but manages to dodge embarrassment by playing what basically amounts to an amiable klutz - an accident-prone American treasury agent of Sicilian descent (named Puzzu, which nobody seems to be able to get right!) sent out by his firm to retrieve the money and told to remain 'inconspicuous' but, instead, is forever getting into trouble - though he ultimately proves surprisingly resourceful by finding the loot, foiling the crooks and winning the girl (Martinelli as Romero's daughter, who's somewhat wasted here)!! <br /><br />Still, the film's best moments are provided by suave gangster Riccardo Garrone: apart from his would-be hard-boiled persona and the hilarious use of dialect, he's flanked by a trio of nitwits who more often than not prove a hindrance in the fulfillment of his various schemes! Also, in view of the story being set in Rome, it's odd that the police officer investigating the case is a Spaniard (doubtless an exigency of the co-production deal)! <br /><br />Along the years, I've missed out on Hoffman's other Italian comedy - ALFREDO, ALFREDO (1972) - a number of times (I guess, mainly, because Leonard Maltin only rates it *1/2 in his 'Movies & Video Guide'...but, then, MADIGAN'S MILLION gets a BOMB!); with Pietro Germi directing and co-starring the luscious Stefania Sandrelli, the credentials of that film are certainly more respectable, and I really hope it turns up again on Italian TV soon...

Seeing 'Moonstruck' after so many years is a reminder of how sweet and sensationally funny this film was when it first appeared. Who knew that Cher could act? Who had ever heard of Olympia Dukakis? Nicholas Cage was the beginning of his career, and Vincent Gardenia and Danny Aiello were not known for their comedic talents, nor was Norman Jewison the director.<br /><br />The only really flat note in this splendid work is 'When the Moon Hits Your Eye Like a Big Pizza Pie, That's Amore,' a song that is sung too many times in the movie (once is already too many) and that went on to have a long afterlife in popular music. <br /><br />Cher is -- forgive me -- sensational as Loretta Castorini, a widow who wants to be married and does not have to be in love with the groom. Aielo (Johny Cammareri) obliges by proposing, offering her his pinkie ring as a substitute for an engagement ring, then rushes off to Sicily to be with his dying mother. He charges Loretta with seeing to that his estranged brother, Ronny, attends the wedding. Loretta confronts Ronny and quickly falls in love with him. Meanwhile, her father (Vincent Gardenia) is cheating on her mother (Olympia Dukakis), which Loretta accidentally discovers when Ronny invites her to the Metropolitan Opera.<br /><br />Everything works out in the end, as it inevitably does in films of this genre. In the meantime, all the actors acquit themselves admirably and the audience enjoys itself. In its way, 'Moonstruck' is how Hollywood used to be at its best: rollicking entertainment with no social significance whatsoever. If they'd only lost 'That's Amore' along the way, it would have been perfect.

To experience Head you really need to understand where the Monkees were when they filmed it.<br /><br />This was as their series was coming to a close and the group was near break up. Their inventive and comedic series (sort of an American Idol of their day) took four unknown actors and formed a manufactured supergroup around them.<br /><br />This is their take on their 'manufactured image' and status as the 2nd tier Beatles. They always felt they were in a box, trapped, and unable to find credibility despite their talents.<br /><br />It is also a hell of a musical-trippy, inventive (I have the soundtrack) and full of surprises.<br /><br />See it with an open mind.

Fun With Dick and Jane failed to entertain on so many levels. There were loose ends with the writing, for example, it seems as though one of the major conflicts was the indictment of Jim Carrey's character DIck Harper, but the writers never follow up that particular conflict. Basically the story is weak and mostly unfunny, but Carrey saves a few scenes with his physical humor, but honestly, Jim Carrey wasn't very funny in this movie, and Tea Leone might as well have been there just for her appearance because she wasn't funny either. This is just another example of Hollywood banking off franchise actors with a lousy unoriginal story.

I would rather have 20 root canals than go through this film again. The Prince of Annoying, Myles Berkowitz, has wasted nearly two hours of my life with this piece of cynical pseudo-cool. The only amusing thing in this whole mess is Mr. Samaha's obnoxious off camera patter about tits and ass. Berkowitz takes a great concept and grinds it into the dust. It is choppy and badly done, in an apparent effort to make it seem edgy or funny. It is neither. I seldom feel that a movie was a waste of film (or tape), but this one qualifies for that distinction. If a date suggests seeing this film, run.

Like Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), only more so. There's more of everything, more animals, more varied African tribes, and scenes in which the thought must be, if this was good with three or four lions, forty would be better. Tarzan wrestles with crocodiles—the the crocodile machine spins in the water like a rolling pin, around and around, jaws flapping. Tarzan can kill it with his ubiquitous knife if the blasted saurian would hold still. Tarzan kills lions and rhinos and a steadily increasing number of animals. His friends are real chimps, people wearing larger ape costumes, and elephants. In fact, they use Indian elephants—far more friendly and trainable than African ones—with costume ears attached to their heads. The human story: another white man, worse than the rest, shows up to join with Holt to go after the ivory from the elephant graveyard. Tarzan won't show them the way, so the bad guy shoots an elephant so they can follow it to its deathbed. Tarzan intercedes, and the bad guy shoots him—but, of course, he survives and returns to save Jane. Everybody else dies, Holt and the bad guy and every single one of their 'boys.' People are expendable, especially Africans, and there doesn't seem to be much distinction between the black fellows who die because they work for the white men travelling through taboo country and those black fellows who kill them. This must be the last Tarzan movie before the Hays Code made Jane wear more clothes. There are a number of underwater scenes in which Jane swims nude, and though the light is flickering the movement and the glimpses are very appealing. Apparently one of Weismuller's friends from the Olympic swim team did the nude scenes, and not Maureen O'Sullivan. She, however, moves through the movie wearing the same sort of loincloth Weismuller wears (plus a bikini top), showing a splendid glimpse of thigh and hip. They still don't need to talk a lot. They sleep together and hang out with cool animals and stay away from cities. No wonder they're happy.

I own this video as well as the concert version of the musical with Patti Lupone and George Hearn with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. George Hearn is fantastic in my book as are Angela Lansbury and the composer, Stephen Sondheim. This musical is operatic in scope and shows much ingenuity in composition. I certainly hope that this VHS becomes available on DVD!! Hearn's performance is spookily sympathetic. The one annoying performance is the young woman who sings the role of Joanna. I believe this performance was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, rather than on a Broadway stage and am not sure that the minimalist set was utilized in New York, as it was in this production. But I found the scaffolding being dragged across the stage to be quite effective to 'portray' the streets of London. I highly recommend this movie.

At least the jingle by Tim Finn was melodic. Roberts is the his usual inept self. Characters are inconsistent, dull, purposeless. Roberts changes his accent even within one line.

This is an OK adaptation, but not as good as the TV version. The actors are generally alright but I found Jeremy Northam rather wet as Mr Knightley, particularly compared to Mark Strong in the TV version. Gwyneth Paltrow is OK and her English accent is pretty good but again, I preferred Kate Beckinsale's Emma. There are excellent support performances from Toni Collette, Juliet Stephenson and Sophy Thompson.<br /><br />The script is often played too much for laughs, the book is a comedy, but there are too many set-piece gags here, and also the Frank Churchill subplot is almost completely absent.<br /><br />My biggest criticism is the scenery. It is far too lush. England has never been like this. It looks like a chocolate box. Only Americans would make it like this.<br /><br />Despite these criticisms I enjoyed this film but would recommend the TV adaptation more.

Just re-saw this last night and to put it bluntly: 'Style instead of substance'. We can already guess that there had to be a lot more to Jerry Lee Lewis than what is depicted here. The Jerry Lee Lewis character in this movie is not depicted as a real human being for one minute throughout the entire hour and a half plus running time, but then again, all the other characters are only one pencil-stroke from being total cartoon characters.<br /><br />Let's take the beginning. We see Jerry Lee and his cousin, Jimmy Swaggart sneaking over to the black jazz club and we see Jerry getting his inspiration. Might be possible. We see how the two cousins choose different paths in life (also possible). Then we cut to Jerry Lee playing the piano as an adult (now played by Dennis Quaid) and it's thrilling and a little scary. Cut to a scene where he first meets his second cousin, Myra. From then on the whole thing turns into a recap of certain events played out in a style befitting a news reel on high speed.<br /><br />Not that the movie is not a little entertaining and it's great to hear new versions of the songs that made Jerry Lee. Alec Baldwin as Jimmy Swaggart is also a reason why you should at least take a look at this, an indicator of his greater successes in the years to come. Winona Ryder as Myra is the most one noty character in the film. She teases, she sobs, she chews gum and play coquettish and that's about it. There is never for a minute given a reason why she ended up being the third Mrs. Lewis and speaking of wives, where are the first two? That is why this really can't be classified as a biopic, but more of a inaccurate news reel. We see Jerry get his first song played on the radio, we see his second single going into the top ten, we see his third go to no. 1 and so on. Then comes the inevitable downfall. Absolutely, no basis in reality.<br /><br />To conclude another minor quarrel: The movie takes place from '56 to '58 and still Myra says: 'I am only 13' right up till the end.

I agree with one commentator who says that it's really impossible to review Glen or Glenda? objectively. If one does so, the film on its merits would have to be rated as fairly terrible given the hilarious, convoluted dialog, the generally mediocre to poor acting by the cast as well as the zero production values. Yet, such an assessment does not capture the absolutely riveting experience of watching this film as it unfolds. It isn't the fact that the subject of the film is transvestitism and that it was a controversial lifestyle choice in the 1950s. It's not even the plea for tolerance of people who embrace alternate life choices that fascinates except as an historic relic.<br /><br />No, what makes Glen or Glenda? still a fascinating film after 50 years is that Ed Wood laid his psyche bare in a way that so-called auteur directors like Hitchcock or Godard, despite their vastly superior talents, never did. In Glen or Glenda, Wood isn't afraid to reveal his own deeply conflicted feelings about being a transvestite despite the plea for tolerance for it through out the film. Indeed, the conclusion of the film suggest that Ed Wood's Glen character will be able to 'kill' his Glenda female counterpart by transferring the feelings of love and affection Glen has for his feminine counterpart to his future wife, Barbara. The psychiatrist even reassures Glen and Barbara that as Glen makes that psychic transference, Glenda will disappear. So, while Wood could plead for tolerance of transvestites in general, he wasn't so sure of desiring it for himself.<br /><br />Moreover, Wood wasn't afraid of throwing everything else that crossed his mind on the screen. He did it with whatever stock footage he could get his hands on. If it didn't cohere, so what? What the viewer saw in Glen or Glenda especially was Ed Wood's imaginative world in all of its fundamental strangeness.<br /><br />The only comment I wish to add to my comment above is that my two-star rating is based solely on the objective evaluation criteria cited in the first paragraph. The oddly memeric effect the film has despite its technically atrocious qualities I don't think can be rated.

Sequels have a nasty habit of being disappointing, and the best credit I can give this is that it maintains that old tradition. These three tales aren't anything as good as any from the original Creepshow.<br /><br />By far the best of the trio involves a wooden idol which comes to life to take revenge on the thugs who killed its owners. The second story is about a lake monster which seems to be nothing more than a lot of floating slop, makes you wonder how anybody could possibly be scared of it. The third story includes a cameo from Stephen King as a truck driver, but other than that is a pretty unmemorable tale concerning the victim of a road traffic accident who comes back from the dead for the person who knocked him down.<br /><br />Watch the original Creepshow instead, or if you already have done then be happy with that.

Really...and incredible film that though isn't very popular...extremely touching and almost life altering...was for me at least.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing and buying .....Added to my favorite movie list....it's number one now....<br /><br />This is a very touching movie that all people should see..<br /><br />The Man in the Moon.....we'll it's just incredible. It's now my favorite movie and I only saw it today and I'd recommend it to anyone above 15 as long as you're somewhat mature......If you don't really try to feel the characters emotions then you'll never get the true meaning and value of this movie....But it really is incredible....just watch it because it'll alter the way some people look at life....worth seeing 5/5

I only wish there was a grade lower than F to give it! i scored it a 1 in the vote tally.I am grading this not even as a regular film,but as a T&A film,and this is the worst,lamest,crappiest and most awful movie i've seen.the acting,story and music are all terrible,not to mention there isn't even any nudity for the T&A connisuer.it's about a male cheerleader and the viewer is made to sit through many painful scenes of him doing cheers.avoid this piece of trash at all cost! this is the worst of bad 80's teen cinema.

This two and a half hour long film was shown recently at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) at a 10 PM show. There was a scheduled 1 AM show after that, but wondered if anyone was going to stay awake to see that until 3:30 am. The opening scene is of a man walking in a field, and it lasts four minutes of movie time. It is an ominous sign of what's to come: a good 144 minutes more of pretty much the same. There is a scene of a man and a woman against a wall, standing in the sun. It is repeated 15 times, with very sparse dialogue. Occasionally, these very long slow sequences are interrupted by shocking stills, such as a close up of female genitalia, shown for one full minute of film time (audience crowd laughing in the last 20 seconds, as to say, 'what's the message?'). The story resembles Dostoyevsky's novel 'The Karamazov brothers', in which a cretin falls in love with a woman of easy morals. In one of the rare instants in which the crowd was laughing (more in desperation to try to justify having been there already a full two hours to see nothing happening) was when the statement by a british tourist that he couldn't see things clearly since the Eurostar train was traveling at 180 miles an hour, was translated by the translator with automatic switch of units of measure from English System to Metric system to 'they couldn't see things clearly since the train was traveling at 300 kilometers per hour'. What was amazing about this movie is that the quality of cinematography reveals that alot of money has been spent on it. This was no film kitchen 8-mm experiment. It was carefully planned, structured, acted, montaged. Yet, I got so little out of it. Some comments indictated on the excruciating detail, such as the minutae of a dandling key chain on a door just opened. Okay, it was noted, but what was the purpose? Some corageous people in the audience walked away after the first hour. The rest remained out of curiosity: there must be something happening at the end. There never was. And maybe that's what the film is about. All the movies at the theater are action-packed. This one wants to be different. There is nothing happening.

A delightful and wonderful film, which has entered my pantheon of great romantic comedies. IN many ways it's even better than 'When Harry met Sally.' IT wears well on viewing and re-viewing. The cast is excellent, and both David Duchovny and Minnie Driver give us really believable characters.

Dynasty Revisited in Hawaii... Full of clichés, highly predictable, unrealistic and sometimes even stupid. If you have nothing better to do however, it does provide 40 minutes of simple, unpretensive entertainment, endless looks at great male and female muscles and very good photography of the spectacular Hawaiian scenery. On the other hand, If you are looking for anything more than that, stay away...<br /><br />Oh, and by the way, if you have ever worked in a Hotel or know anything about running one, you have two options: 1. You will feel sick every two minutes at the sheer stupidity and silliness of how the show presents Hotel Business or, 2. Look at it as science fiction comedy as I did, lie back, relax, and laugh about it!

If you have sons or daughters who love action, adventure, intrigue, and imagination - without the need to break into song every twelve minutes - then this is the Disney movie for you! My sons loved every minute of this film, and I have to admit that I laughed out loud many times throughout the movie. There are no sappy songs to get in the way of a wonderfully told story, and the characters are all lovable and identifiable in their own right. This should go down as one of the Disney 'classics' because of its beautifully illustrated scenery and its non-stop excitement!

while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the 'spoilers' explanation, ''spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film.' well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...

Mirage (1990) is a very rare horror/chiller from 1990, released here in the UK on the 'New World Video' label.<br /><br />It's a desert based horror film about a group of young friends who are partying for the weekend, only to be killed off one by one by an unknown force who drives a menacing black truck!!! This film has some creepy scenes, and some gore here and there, but i have to say that the acting was so lame, even by low budget standards! But the film was oddly addictive and i liked it, and i never fell asleep or turned it off, which is always a good sign! I nearly gave this movie 6/10, but seeing as it built up steam along the way, had some good moments of gore and suspense, had some good nudity, and the fact that the blonde in the main female role was a hottie too! i'll give it 7/10.

Directed by a veteran Hollywood director Henry King who began his career still in 1915, Love is a Many Splendored Thing was one of his last great films. It was based on a bestseller by Han Suyin called simply A Many Splendored Thing the phrase that was borrowed by the author from the poem The Kingdom of God by Francis Thompson where that many splendored word `love' was used in quite a different and rather transcendental context meaning the love of God. Made in the ‘50s, the film marked along with works by such directors as Douglas Sirk and Vincente Minnelli a sort of renascence of melodrama, its florescence and reaching yet again a peak of popularity. <br /><br /> The story begins when a handsome American reporter Mark Elliott played by William Holden yet once again typecast in one of his irresistible `playboy' roles comes to the Hong Kong and meets there a young and pretty Han Suyin (Jennifer Jones) of half-Chinese half-English origin who is working as a doctor at a hospital and whose husband was recently killed by the Chinese communists. Instantly Mark feels a rather strong attraction towards her but at the beginning his deep feelings are not quite reciprocated by Han's heart left cold after the death of her husband (`I believe in human heart now only as a doctor'). But very soon she yields to the persistent courting of tempting as hell Mark and both of them enter a passionate relationship apparently stoppable by nothing, even by the fact that Mark is unhappily married and his wife doesn't want to give him a divorce or social differences and prejudices caused by Han's Chinese origin. But still it's the fate that has a final word to say in determining the fairness of the eternalness of such a blissful loving relationship for no matter how enduring the two assume it to be the merciless time is waiting in a rather alarming form of death, prepared at any given moment to prove its impermanence.<br /><br /> Undoubtedly one of the most romantic films ever made, Love is a Many Splendored Thing features fine performances from William Holden and Jennifer Jones, wonderful Academy Award winning musical score by Alfred Newman and extremely romantic, touching, heart-warming but ultimately heart-breaking story. Don't miss that many splendored film. 8/10<br /><br />

Ultimately too silly and pointless. Yes there is the gilded cage metaphor but probably most kids would miss that. Forgettable. Instantly.<br /><br />Animation is, as we have come to expect, super-real. The plot-line could best be described as thin but tenacious. Although the ending seemed arbitrary to me.<br /><br />The sewer underworld is a suitably disgusting reflection of the world above and, somehow, wealth and money seem to count for a lot there too. Oh yes, and there's a romantic interest with the female being the smarter, more savvy and go-getting of the pair - this in itself is rapidly becoming a tiresome (anti) stereotype. Probably your kids will love it though.

As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish. <br /><br />A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?<br /><br />The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.<br /><br />Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.

Former brat pack actor and all round pretty boy Rob Lowe stars in a film set in a high security American prison . I had a gut feeling his character was going to be popular for all the wrong reasons like Tobias in the first series of OZ , but PROXIMITY isn`t that kind of film , it`s more like a ' Man on the run ' film like THE FUGITIVE . It also makes a nod to the themes of punishment and justice with James Coburn putting in a cameo as the spokesman for a justice for victims pressure group but any intelligent discussion on how society should treat criminals is completely ignored as the film degenerates into tired old cliches of shoot outs and car chases

Don't waste 90 minutes of your time on 'Fast Food, Fast Women.' It's annoyingly episodic script with three story lines patched together is laughably bad due to predictable writing, horrific acting, and even bad music. I found the anorexic main character upsetting to watch every time she was on screen. SHE needs the fast food.<br /><br />Spend the 90 minutes you'd devote to this turkey doing something more exciting...like trimming your toenails. You'd have more entertainment value.<br /><br />The only redeeming thing about this film is Louise Lasser, but she deserves much better than this tired script. It's as impotent as the elder guy she courts in the movie.<br /><br />VIEWER BEWARE!

I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.

I didn't expect much when I decided to watch this movie, so I was surprised to find myself thoroughly enjoying it. A couple of scenes had me laughing almost uncontrollably. The characters were engaging (no pun intended); however, the story is predictable. The fun of it comes from watching Crawl (Shore's character), a ditzy-yet-wise California dude a country college girl brings home for Thanksgiving, trying in his awkward (yet endearing) way to fit in to their lifestyle. I was also surprised that in all this there was a message. If you have a chance, see this movie!

You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.<br /><br />Episode 'Valentines Pay'<br /><br />Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end<br /><br />Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk. <br /><br />IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.<br /><br />'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.

Phantasm ....Class. Phantasm II.....awesome. Phantasm III.....erm.....terrible.<br /><br />Even though i would love to stick up for this film, i quite simply can't. The movie seems to have 'sold out'. First bad signs come when the video has trailers for other films at the start (something the others did not). Also too many pointless characters, prime examples the kid (who is a crack shot, funny initially but soon you want him dead), the woman who uses karate to fight off the balls (erm not gonna work, or rather shouldn't) and the blooming zombies (what the hell are they doing there, there no link to them in the other Phatasms). Also there is a severe lack of midgets running about.<br /><br />The only good bits are the cracking start and, of course, Reggie B.<br /><br />(Possible SPOILER coming Up)<br /><br />To me this film seems like a filler between II and IV as extra characters just leave at the end so can continue with main 4 in IV.<br /><br />Overall very, VERY disappointing. 3 / 10

Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.<br /><br />Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.<br /><br />Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.<br /><br />The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats?

Honestly, I went to see the movie, not because of the actors, not because of the plot but because it was rated 17 here in Luxembourg and a movie has to be really brutal or pornographic to be put in this category. Believe me, being a movie-freak, I have seen quite a lot of brutal films in my lifetime (Ichi the killer, Irreversible, Hellraiser) but this movie was by far the most disturbing and brutal picture I have ever seen. <br /><br />The plot is plain stupid, the directing is awful, acting was mediocre even the music was a cheap copy of so-called 'Horror Soundtracks'. There isn't a single intelligent aspect in the whole movie, and some of the scenes are really hard to stand. (especially the scene, where you see the embryos in the glasses and hear the baby cries--horrible). I can't understand why the movie was rated 16 in Germany, where normally the criteria are real tough (e.g. kill-bill (brutal but it made fun of itself and had great allusions to Asian cinema and besides a magnificent directing) even a movie like state of grace is rated 18). No one can call this a Horror movie, because actually it was more about showing gore than about scaring the public (Showing the 'Creep's' face in the middle of the movie was a very bad decision); for me (excuse my expression) it is just one insane director living out his disturbing fantasies. In some scenes you see violence, that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot nor does it explain anything. The plot has holes and flaws, the dialog is boring, honestly I can't mention a single positive aspect of the movie except for the British and Scottish accent.<br /><br />If I had something to say, I would ban this movie from the theaters, I fully understand why none of the big production companies invested their money in this crap.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to getting feedbacks to my thread and I'd be happy to discuss about one or the other topic.<br /><br />'Livin' the dream baby, livin' the dream' David Aames

Normally I am a typical 'creepy-crawly-hatin'' girl, but after watching this film (on YouTube of course), I'm having different perspectives. And also I did not know that my favorite animation studio - Fleischer's made another film that's about community of insects whose city garden home is threatened by humans (lighted cigars and cigarette butts,footsteps,etc.), and how a plucky young grasshopper named Hoppity saves the day and wins the heart of Honey the bee; I love the lovely Ms. Honey. You know, after watching the film, the bugs reminded me of the some of the 'jitter-bugs' from Don Bulth's Thumbelina. And out of the songs in the film, I love 'We're a Couple in The Castle;' when I sing that song, it almost made me cry.<br /><br />This wonderful film was the second (and final) feature to come out of the Fleischer studio. The film was originally going to be released on November of 1941, but since the Fleischer's rival, Disney, released Dumbo weeks earlier, Paramount changed the date to December of the same year, but Mr. Bug unfortunately went into a, then unrealized, trap of terrible timing. Having the misfortune of opening two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Bug was a financial disaster and led to the ousting of Max and Dave Fleischer, from the studio they had established in 1919, and reorganized the company as Famous Studios. Another huge factor in their departure was the fact that Max and Dave Fleischer were no longer speaking to one another due to disputes (how sad it was). Overall I love both films from the Fleischer bros. - Gulliver and Mr. Bug.

Having enjoyed Mike Myers previous work (Waynes World and Saturday Night Live) my expectations of a 60s bond spoof were fairly high. It became plain after the first minute that this was an exercise in how to be as puerile and unfunny as possible. I swit ched off after ten minutes. I watched it the other day a second time to see whether I had been unfair the first time. I switched it off after ten minutes. I find it hard to believe how even a twelve year-old boy could find this funny. The dialogue is an e mbarrassment, Myers is painful to watch (as is Heather Graham) and the succession of characters including Fat Bastard makes matters even worse. Apart from the mildly amusing title and the psychedelic set design this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I personally recommend you avoid this like the plague, though several friends of mine enjoyed it (maybe they were blindfolded at the time).º

A real classic, ten out of ten! Every actor is perfect, the screenplay is a haunting succession of suspenseful scenes. Scenes in car and scenes in the mountains are breathtaking. Wonder if this film is already out in DVD, because it must be seen in Widescreen version. Saw this film in the late fifties, maybe three or four times, and never since then forgot it.I remember it was one of the first Warner like cinemas cope features, process called Warnerscope which gave a very neat cinematography. Shelley Winters and Jack Palance deserved an Oscar for their performances.The only thing I could criticize is not having been directed by someone like, say Nicholas Ray, to increase its rhythm and tension.

There are a number of movies that my high school friends and I used to joke about. They are mostly the campy works of the 50's that showed up on television on the late show. This was one of our favorites. The soul of a fallen native being brought to life in a tree stump with a scowl on its face. Now my friends claimed that if you looked carefully, you could see the thing had shoes. I never saw this. What is most striking to me is that the natives seemed to be white men with black grease paint on their faces; some looked sort of Italian. They also spoke with the strangest timbre that didn't seem to fit their situation. Like the mummy movies, the mobility of the thing didn't seem to offer much of a threat. In a confrontation, one should only have to walk fast; I guess it's the old element of surprise. If you see this, don't take it too seriously. Be happy that we have a battery of old horror movies that gave us such joy.

Well this was the WWF's last pay per view event of the millennium and it ended the year and millennium right. The huge story line of Stephanie and HHH started right here at this event when Steph turned on her dad. Vince McMahon had a great match with HHH and this event is very good I give it a 9

This film is about a family trying to come to terms with the death of the mother/wife by moving to Genova, Italy.<br /><br />The plot of 'Genova' sounds promising, but unfortunately it is empty and without focus. The film only consists of a collection of scenes depicting the daily life of the family, such as swimming, taking piano lessons or cooking eggs. Most of such scenes are redundant and tiresome, completely failing to engage viewers emotionally. The ending is very disappointing as it is not spectacular, moving or emotional. I can safely say that I am disappointed and bored by 'Genova' The only thing good about the film is the sunny weather and the beauty of Genova. 'Genova' can serve as an extended tourism advertisement for the city, but not as a film to be enjoyed.

Why watch this? There is only one reason and that is for the greatness of John Saxon. I love his acting. My most favorite appearances by him are in Nightmare On Elm Street 1,3, and 7 as Nancy's father a cop, Black Christmas as a cop, and From Dusk Till Dawn again as a cop. When I was rummaging through my local mall video outlet I came across the film Zombie Death House and I quickly tossed it back but before moving on I noticed that John Saxon was not only an actor in this film but for the first time that I have ever heard of a director. This intrigued me (Also the cheap $9.00 price tag) and I and I had to have it. Upon coming home I realized that this film did not live up to Saxon's other work even his acting, which may have been muddled by the added pressures of directing. But it was not just him the other actors sucked too. It seemed as if they had all been pulled out of a recent porno shoot and told now guys you really have to act. The film even looks of 80's porn quality. I cannot in good faith recommend this film to casual viewers, but if you are an obsessed fan of the 80's who missed out on the culture that came from that era by being born to late, or a fan of crap films than this one is for. Also if you dig John Saxon as I do.

This is just flat out unwatchable. If there's a story in here somewhere, it's so deeply buried beneath the horrid characters and jarring camera work that's it's indiscernible. There's a group of vampire hunters who go around doing their thing, and the vampires they kill have little aliens inside of them. They pop their heads out and talk like Speedy Gonzales. If you can imagine a blood and gore covered alien sock puppet screaming in horror as a cowboy dude zaps it with a cattle prod, well, that's what you get here. These folks are loud, obnoxious, violent, and just extremely annoying. Then there are some anti-human humans, who stand around in their CGI spaceship being so incredibly pompous that it's impossible to take. These folks make Hillary Clinton seem like a right-wing extremist in comparison. They're friends with some vampires, or something...who cares.<br /><br />Then there's the camera work. Remember how everybody hated the thousand-cuts-a-minute crap from the recent Rolleball remake? The folks who made this movie LOVE that stuff. There's enough of it in here for three really crappy nu-metal videos on MTV.<br /><br />Nuff said. This thing smells. In comparison, Dracula 3000 is a masterwork.

The ghost of the Vietnam war has haunted the American psyche for thirty years now. If not because of the fact that tens of thousands of American soldiers went MIA in Vietnam, or the manner in which those who returned were treated, then because it was the first war that America could be said to have lost. Many men came home from the war a shadow of their former selves, and the original First Blood managed to provide a small insight into their problems as they attempted to rotate back into the world, as the saying goes. First Blood Part II, on the other hand, is little more than a fist-pumping mess that goes to illustrate how sore America can be, both in victory and defeat. Stallone puts in another sluggish performance as the titular Special Forces commando, while Richard Crenna attempts to hold up the serious actor quotient. Where it all comes undone is in the script, which didn't do any better when it was called Missing In Action and starred Chuck Norris. What little semblance of logic there was in the original is now gone, as the filmmakers decide to paint a big S on Rambo's massive chest.<br /><br />The film picks up a little while after the end of First Blood. The film, that is - the novel didn't allow for the possibility of sequels. In this mediocre follow-up, Rambo has been put to work at what appears to be some sort of open-air mine. As he is breaking rocks and working up a sweat, a prison guard pulls him away to go and have a chat with Colonel Trautman, who advises him that his government is willing to offer him an early release if he goes on a covert mission. Rambo, never one to back down from a hard day's violent work, accepts, and is promptly shipped off to a covert base in what appears to be Cambodia or Thailand (I forget which). From there, he is commissioned to seek out a camp where American MIAs are supposedly being held, and photograph them. His mission quite clearly specifies that he is not to make any attempt to secure their release. Rambo being Rambo, however, has other ideas in spite of their possible political implications.<br /><br />Of course, things go somewhat awry when it turns out that the people commissioning Rambo's work have more interest in making sure no American MIAs are found. It is the age-old conspiracy theory, and makes no apologies for exploiting the plight of many an American family that was left without a son during the ten years that the official Vietnam war had been raging for. Of course, with the Jingoism that was inherent in American society during the 1980s, they could not help but work in a plot tangent about the Vietnamese army being in bed with what appears to be a single battalion of Russians. Together, the two antagonists attempt to extract what information they can from Rambo, but it backfires upon them in an orgy of bullets, arrows, rockets, and destruction. About the only thing missing is the moment when Rambo drinks from a grail-like chalice and declares himself invincible.<br /><br />To be honest, First Blood Part II is a well-photographed, and well-choreographed, action spectacle. The hand-to-hand combat with the larger Russian commander is one of the few battles in the film that has any dramatic tension whatsoever. The rest is simply a case of the lead actor and the director building a fantasy for Americans to pump their fist to. Fortunately, this fad of America über alles action films soon died down when more introspective and intelligent war films such as Platoon began doing the rounds. Some of the kills shown here are quite creative, despite all the problems. The Vietnamese commander meets an end that many an action film villain would envy. The Russian commander bites it in a manner that is as spectacular as it is ridiculous. Only in a 1980s action film would one see a LAW being used from inside a helicopter. Sure, there have been action film clichés rooted in contradictions of fact, but never this ridiculous before.<br /><br />I gave Rambo: First Blood Part II a one out of ten. It is so bad it is ridiculous, and so ridiculous that it is often funny. One doesn't even need to have served in the military to know how stupid some of the action sequences are. The only risk it takes is in trying to make a stupid political statement with what is a heartbreaking subject for those directly involved. Keep the tongue firmly in the cheek, and it might be watchable.

Tim Robbins makes a wonderful film. His wife (susan sarandon) gives a wonderful performance as the sister Helen Perjean who wants to help Mattew Poncelet (Sean Penn) who is accussed of murder and who also will die of an injection... 120 minutes of splended acting and touching scenes is what you get. Great acting and it is a film that gives something to think about!<br /><br />Susan Sarandon deserves the oscar of 1995 best actress. It is probably one of her greatest films ever. <br /><br />I didn't see 'The Craddle will Rock' but I sure have to see more films of Robbins. <br /><br />Rating: 9 / 10 or ***1/2 out of 4. Go and see.....

The Diary of Anne Frank is the second best-selling nonfiction book in the world, and for good reason. Nonetheless, sitting through this documentary about her life, which fills in some of the details where the diary left off, I thought, 'Just another documentary about Anne Frank.' I found it to be competent but not extraordinary. That was my complacent attitude because I was already well aware of the story of Anne Frank; most of what the documentary had to tell me wasn't news to me.<br /><br />Everything changed, though, when I got to the end of the documentary---when I saw the motion picture footage of Anne Frank. The emotional impact of seeing this footage, only a second or so long, made everything that came before it a thousand times more real---but not just everything that was in the documentary; everything I had previously known about Anne Frank suddenly became more real to me, more personal. I'd always been moved by her story, but when I saw that footage, what I felt was stronger and deeper and more profound than any other film experience of my life. (I knew beforehand that this documentary contained live footage of Anne Frank, and I'd even seen the footage in a movie review on television, but seeing it in the context of the documentary was a completely different experience. It's not likely that my mentioning it here will spoil it for anyone.)<br /><br />I realize now that many people still don't know the story of Anne Frank; it's discouraging at times to be witness to this kind of ignorance. I think to myself, 'How could someone NOT know the story of Anne Frank?' This being the case, though, ANNE FRANK: REMEMBERED, along with reading her diary, is the best place to start. It's a story that everyone should know.

Paris, je t'aime (2006) is a film made up of 18 segments. You can do the math--18 segments in 120 minutes means each director had seven minutes to tell her or his story. The movie is based on the premise that you can, indeed, tell a story in that short amount of time. The premise works. Almost all of the segments are powerful, complete, and satisfying. Each presents a different aspect of the Parisian experience, and almost every director draws forth outstanding performances from a cast of great and near-great actors.<br /><br />There were so many powerful portrayals in this film that it's hard to pick one or two favorites. Probably the most memorable to me were Juliette Binoche as a grieving mother in the segment 'Place des Victoires,' Gena Rowlands as an aging beauty in 'Quartier Latin,' Catalina Sandino Moreno as a maid in the segment 'Loin du 16ème' and Margo Martindale as a Colorado mail carrier who has learned to speak French so she can visit Paris ('14ème Arrondissement' segment). <br /><br />Special mention must be given to Gulliver Hecq, probably the meanest little boy to ever harass an American tourist in a Parisian Metro Station (segment 'Tuileries').<br /><br />This is an outstanding movie. My wife and I decided to rent it in a few months so we can catch some of the subtle points we surely missed. However, Paris is photographed so beautifully that I would suggest that you try to see it on a large screen. In any case, don't miss it!

I saw this movie with my friend and we couldnt stop laughing! i mean there was nothing scary about this movie! It was funny all the lines Freddy said were hilarious! I think they shoudln't have even made a new nightmare and just gone to Freddy Vs. jason. Although some parts were gross (like the head blowing up). and any elm street film from 1- 5 sucked. this was the best besides Number 1. I wouldnt recomend this movie if you want a good horror. But if you have nothing else to do rent this and you'll laugh alot.I want to see the texas chainsaw massacre I think it would be scary. Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare overall grade: B-

this show just sucks. i don't think i even need to say it or why because judging by the number of comments already i am just repeating everything. keys to the vip is like turning on your TV and having it throw poo at you. that is exactly what it is like i am not even exaggerating even a little bit. these guys are so stupid, not funny and not smooth with the ladies that it's not even funny-casue-its-stupid. i sat through four episodes and i want my two hours back. where do they find the contestants because they are obviously deficient mentally. if i was the man who came up with this idea for a show and put it on TV i would do the world a favour and jump off the tallest building i could find. how does garbage like this get on TV? especially the comedy network shouldn't a show on something called the comedy network at least be a comedy show or maybe be funny so often?

let me first just say that in the past, i have been a huge carlin fan. i think george is one of the smartest people and best comedians on the planet. what made george so great in the past was his ability to look at things in his own twisted way, and give us his unique perspective on those things. it wasn't always meant to be funny, but you always respected his opinions, because they were presented in such a clever way. but you are all diseased is just a long rant. he doesn't give us any unique perspective on anything, he just gives us a long list of stuff that he's p.o.'d at. there is no insight, no cleverness, just an old man complaining for one hour straight about things that we have all complained about. and on top of that, it wasn't even funny. you are all diseased appeals to dumb people who can't handle anything more advanced than something simple and direct. i don't mind anger fueled comedy, but george could have done so much better. i really hope that george carlin's next show will live up to the quality that george has shown in the past.

Laughably awful. One might think that all the big-name actors involved in this movie would at least make it believable, but they do not--this one is a stinker.<br /><br />Characters either sprint around without having a good reason to know where they are going, or they stand around making constipated faces when they should be running for their lives.<br /><br />Check your higher brain functions at the door if you intend to try watching this movie. Or, get a bunch of your most clever friends together and give this one the 'Mystery Science Theater 3000' treatment. That's what I was doing through the second half of this turkey.<br /><br />And PLEASE don't confuse this with the excellent movie 'The Day of the Jackal,' a far-superior thriller from 30 years ago.

The first time I saw this, I didn't laugh too much. At the time, I was only about fifteen years old and thought that maybe some of the deeper humor was too mature for me to understand at the time. I had the same reaction when I viewed it a second time a few months ago, and this time, it was because Felix's aborted suicide attempt at the beginning of the movie kind of darkened the movie a bit. This scene made some of the things Oscar said and did to Felix later in the movie seem needlessly cruel, and their personality clashes weren't as amusing as they could have been. Had I not already known the story, I would have been worried that some of Oscar's antics to Felix might push him over the edge. As it was, it didn't make me laugh or smile like the television show with Jack Klugman and Tony Randall did. Still, all in all, a pretty good movie and it spawned one of the greatest sitcoms on television. 7 out of 10.

Oh dear. good cast, but to write and direct is an art and to write wit and direct wit is a bit of a task. Even doing good comedy you have to get the timing and moment right. Im not putting it all down there were parts where i laughed loud but that was at very few times. The main focus to me was on the fast free flowing dialogue, that made some people in the film annoying. It may sound great while reading the script in your head but getting that out and to the camera is a different task. And the hand held camera work does give energy to few parts of the film. Overall direction was good but the script was not all that to me, but I'm sure you was reading the script in your head it would sound good. Sorry.

When I first heard about Moon Child, I thought it was a joke. After a few months, I figured I guess it's for real. The few reviews I read that WEREN'T made by squealing fangirls were not very promising.<br /><br />When I was given the opportunity to watch it, I was fully prepared to groan, wince, and otherwise need to close my eyes to avoid the silliness.<br /><br />I was more than a little surprised, and in a good way.<br /><br />Yes, Moon Child has its moments of cheese, camp, and general dorkiness -- I think that's kind of impossible to avoid when it involves Gackt Camui, a man not known for his sanity -- but all in all, it was wholly enjoyable.<br /><br />No, it is not a work of cinema genius but it is very, very heartfelt, amusing, with fun choreography, a touching score, and a fun cast. I know little of Japanese cinema so I can't really judge the acting but considering the fact that the cast was speaking a language or extreme dialect foreign to them at one time or another and that a couple of them have almost no acting experience, I was rather impressed.<br /><br />If you can enjoy a good action movie, a good drama, a good comedy, see this film. At least rent it since it's coming to Region 1.<br /><br />On a side note, there is zero homosexual/homoerotic content in this film. I didn't even see much of a subtext. Don't let people that read too much into things ruin this for you.

People talk about how horrible the script was, and how horrible the animation was, but Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealer really is a Japanese Anime aimed towards children. If you look at the anime today it's done in the same style, and it's immensely popular. I don't think this movie was ever intended to be viewed by adults. Just as I don't think it was ever intended to be serious. The very things that people seem to hate about this movie are the things that I love. Rainbow Brite is one of the best cartoon characters ever created in my opinion. She's smart. She's funny. She cares about the enviorment. She cares about her friends. This movie can teach so much to young kids. My little brothers even liked this movie. I have to say this movie taught me a lot when I was a kid. When it came out on DVD I was first in line to buy it. It's a great kids movie. So what if it's not perfect, nothing is really perfect when you look closely enough at it.

Greetings from this Portuguese guy :)<br /><br />I believe The Sopranos are one of the best production ever, it has reality and fiction mixed in such a way, that it's hard to see the difference. It has the same quality as GodFather! James Gandolfini fits at the paper as a glove! I would love The Sopranos would never finish at all. It's perfect! It should be a subject in school :) I saw Sopranos when I was a kid, but I was too young to stay waked until the episode ends, so now I bought the all Episodes in DVD format and I am watching all episodes at home before and after dinner and I am getting addicted, like I did with Prison Break. In my opinion Prison Break and The Sopranos are the best-ever series made for television. The argument of both are splendid and the actors are perfect. Congratulations for such a work.<br /><br />Sorry about my English. Thanks for reading.

The fact that this movie has been entitled to the most successful movie in Switzerland's film history makes me shake my head! It's true, but pitiful at the same time. A flick about the Swiss army could be a good deal better.<br /><br />The story sounds interesting, at the beginning: Antonio Carrera (Michael Koch) gets forced to absolve his military training by the army while he is in the church, wedding his love Laura Moretti (Mia Aegerter).<br /><br />The Acting in some way doesn't really differ from just a few recruits getting drunk and stoned in the reality. Melanie Winiger plays her role as the strong Michelle Bluntschi mediocre, personally i found her rather annoying. <br /><br />The storyline contains a comedy combined with a romance, which does not work as expected. The romance-part is too trashy, and the comedy-part is not funny at all, it's just a cheap try and does not change throughout the whole movie whatsoever. It's funny for preadolescent 12-13 year olds, but not for such as those who search an entertaining comedy. The humor is weak except for some shots.<br /><br />Dope? Cool! Stealing? Cool! If you want a proper comedy about the Swiss RS, make sure you did not absolve your military training yet, and even then don't expect too much!<br /><br />I'll give it 4 out of 10 stars, because Marco Rima is quite funny during his screen time. Not a hell of a lot screen time though

La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, or Terror Express! as it was called on the version I saw, starts as various passengers board a long distance train. Three thuggish idiots, Dave, Phil & Ernie (Carlo De Mejo) board & it's clear that they're there to cause trouble as they intimidate & verbally abuse the other passengers & staff. As the train speeds along things turn nasty when a prostitute named Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) refuses to have sex with Dave, he & his mates decide to hold the entire train hostage so they can have an orgy with Juliette &, well not much else actually happens apart from some hero cop & his prisoner who set about saving the day. Erm, that's it really...<br /><br />This Italian production was directed by Ferdinando Baldi & is complete total & utter crap from start to finish. The script by George Eastman as Luigi Montefiori could just as easily be described as a really boring porno as much as a horror/thriller. It is tediously slow, it's 35 minutes before anything even remotely sleazy happens & as a whole the film lacks the sort of exploitation elements that Italian sleaze & horror was delivering at that time. The film can be compared to another Italian production the infinitely better The House on the Edge of the Park (1980) made the same year, it's a very broad comparison though as everything that made The House on the Edge of the Park the notorious film that it is is absent from La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, there's no blood, no gore, almost no violence, there's only a couple of really tame rapes, the story has no twists or turns & as it's incredibly boring to watch. Italian sleaze & horror from the late 70's & early 80's isn't known for it's strong story lines or great scripts but this films really does scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel on all counts. The character's are awful, the film spends the first 30 plus minutes building them up & giving some background as to why they're on the train but this is all quickly forgotten & comes to absolutely nothing. I hated the lame ending as well & I don't know if I missed something but was any sort of reasonable explanation given as to why these three lamebrains would hijack a train? I don't think there was, was there? I'm sorry but because your angry at a prostitute is not enough of a reason, surely the filmmakers could have come up with something a bit more substantial & interesting if not more plausible. In my opinion this film stinks, it's as simple & straight forward as that I'm afraid.<br /><br />Director Baldi does an OK job, to be fair he only has one corridor & a few train compartments to work with so I'll cut him some slack, having said that the film does become very repetitive. There is no style & he films the sex scenes like a bad soft core porno complete with awful romantic sounding piano music. There is NOT ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD SPILT IN THE ENTIRE FILM, that's right not one single drop. Forget about any gore or violence as you'll be very disappointed if you do, like I did. There are a couple of rapes but they're amateurishly staged & have zero impact, the nasty exploitation & sleaze of say I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or The Last House on the Left (1972) is not here.<br /><br />Technically La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is OK & it's quite well made on what must have been a low budget but the setting obviously helped keep the cost down to a minimum. The acting is poor as usual, although since it was dubbed the original performances have been lost. Fans of Italian horror will recognise a lot of the voices here.<br /><br />La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is a terrible film, it's just my opinion but I was bored to tears waiting for something to happen & when it eventually never I felt cheated, I want those 80 minutes of my life back. This piece of crap isn't even fit to grace the 99p VHS bargain bin in your local Blockbuster, one to avoid.

An adult, realistic, cruel, dark story, like a second part of 'les roseaux savages' (the wild reeds), plenty of beauty and sadness, ellipsis and silences, shadows and little sparks of hope. a man searching for a warm companion, a better life, a sincere attitude.

In 1942 a film TALES OF MANHATTAN told a set of stories that were basically unrelated, but tied together with a suit of men's evening wear. Each story began when the 'tails' were passed from one owner (Charles Boyer, for instance) to another (Ceasar Romero). WINCHESTER '73, a superior film, and a great western, has a similar plot twist. Initially it is about how Jimmy Stewart is seeking Stephen (Horace) MacMahon for some deadly grudge. But in the course of the film the two men get into a shooting contest, the prize (given by Marshall Wyatt Earp - Will Geer) being one of the new Winchester rifles. Stewart barely beats out MacMahon, but the gun is stolen from Stewart, and the chase is on. <br /><br />The gun passes from hand to hand, including John McIntyre (as an arrogant trader who fatally does not know when to stop being arrogant), to Rock Hudson (in a surprising role - and a brief one at that), to Charles Drake, to Dan Duryea (as the delightfully deadly and psychotic Waco Johnny Dean), to MacMahon. Eventually it does return to Stewart.<br /><br />The film is expertly directed by Anthony Mann. Every character has a wide variety of experiences. Duryea gets the rifle literally over Drake's dead body (Duryea forces the issue). But he loses it to MacMahon, who is faster on the draw - not that Duryea is stupid enough to fight for the rifle. As he and Shelley Winter look at MacMahon in the distance, Winter (who watched Duryea kill her former boy friend Drake) drops her distaste for the gunman momentarily to ask why he put up with MacMahon's bullying for the gun. Philosophically, Duryea explains he can wait. Some opportunity will come up later on (i.e., when he can safely kill MacMahon and get back the rifle). <br /><br />The characters are remarkably human. Winters first appears as the future bride of Drake, but she sees a really big negative side to him - an unforgivable side. Drake is aware of this lapse, and it helps lead to his destruction. Other characters have realistic touches, such as J.C. Flippen as an army sergeant who fights an Indian attack with Steward and Steward's friend Millard Mitchell. Oh yes, and with Flippen's fellow soldier - Tony Curtis. Flippen makes one believe this soldier has been on a hundred battlefields before, since 1861 probably. Steward had showed emotions in other films. In IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE he showed a degree of anger at times, and also a near nervous breakdown when he thinks everything is wrong with his life. But here he showed a demonic anger - at the expense of a surprised Duryea (who normally would show such anger himself).<br /><br />The parts of this film fit very neatly together, under Mann's competent hands. This is one western that never wears out, as the audience watches the travels of a Winchester rifle.

I had two reasons for watching this swashbuckler when it aired on Danish television yesterday. First of all, I wanted to see Gina Lollobrigida - and here I wasn't disappointed. She looked gorgeous. Second of all, through reading about the film I had gotten the impression that it featured absurd humor not unlike that which can be found in Philippe de Broca's films. On this account, however, I was sadly disappointed. I found the jokes predictable (apart from a few witty remarks on the topic of war) and the characters completely one-dimensional. Also, the action scenes were done in a strangely mechanical and uninspired fashion, with no sense of drama at all. I kept watching until the end, but I got bored very quickly and just sat there, waiting for the scenes with Lollobrigida.

I saw this movie just recently, and I said to myself: 'This movie is bad!' William Shatner is a great actor, but he is no director! <br /><br />It's not just that the acting is bad, it's terrible. And instead of a plot, we have a very bad storyline that is called a plot! What I really thought was bad was at the beginning where Kirk and McCoy were teaching Spock how to sing 'Row, Row, Row Your Boat!'<br /><br />Do I have something against William Shatner? I do not. But when it comes to being a director, he sucks! This film is not one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But it is the worst of the Star Trek series! <br /><br />I noticed that after this Shatner did not return to direct another film in the series. They apparently did not want him to direct another film again after this happened! <br /><br />Overall, this movie sucks! <br /><br />2/10

He's the only reason to see this film. He gives a very good performance--much better than this crap deserves. He's very handsome and very talented--he deserves better than this. Also depressing is to see Malcolm McDowell in this. He's another talented actor who deserves better but, like Esai, he gives a very good performance. So, if you're fans of either of them you might want to watch. Otherwise, stay away. One more complaint--couldn't we have had more scenes of Esai shirtless?

I saw this film right in the middle while going through a breakup. It was about 3 in the morning and I was battling insomnia with a quick snack. It wasn't too bad at the time, but every time I have tried to watch it since, I can't get into it like I did that night.<br /><br />At the time I thought it was cute and I loved the variety of characters, though they totally could have done better than Goran V, in my opinion. But the one thing that kept me watching was Heather's character and her sad 'commitment' to her husband who didn't want her anymore, which made me feel sorry for her and root for her at the same time. (Considering I was in a similar situation at the time, perhaps that's why I liked her so much.) Not a bad film, but you pretty much have to be somewhere near the character romantically in order to appreciate it, and let's hope you never are.

I grew up in Winnipeg and saw the treatment of the natives almost everyday. There are good and bad in EVERY race, why make them all out to be bad? That goes for all races today. John Harper was an educated man, he graduated from high school, he even had a year of university under his belt before going back to the reserve. How do I know this? John Harper lived with my family for the 3 years he was in high school, and he kept in contact with us the year after graduation. He was a kind and gentle soul, he could be fun loving and he could be serious when the times were right. I wasn't very old when he left our house, but I can still remember all the times he helped me with my homework when my own brother couldn't be bothered. He even taught grade 3 the year before he came to Winnipeg. None of this is mentioned in the movie, and the suicide of constable cross is an admission of guilt as far as I'm concerned. What happened to John is unforgivable, not only in the native community, but also in the white community. Not everyone in Winnipeg think like the police do, I knew the person inside, and what he was like as a PERSON, not an Indian!

Not since 'Harold and Maude' has suicide been so successfully used as the theme for a love story. The acting, by a top notch cast is terrific. With a well structured script, things progress at an enjoyable pace. There are moments of black comedy, but I would classify 'My Suicidal Sweetheart' as a unique romantic comedy, with a touch of dark humor. The relationship between two psychologically challenged lovers, is both touching and engaging. The movie actually makes you question, what is a normal relationship? I highly recommend 'My Suicidal Sweetheart'. Seek it out on DVD under the title 'Crazy for Love'. You will not be disappointed. - MERK

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

I watched this movie. To the end. And that was really not easy. It is so boring, bad played and in nearly every detail stolen from 'BLAIR WITCH PROJECT' that you can't believe the makers take this serious. Even harder to believe, is how this 'product' made it onto VHS and DVD.<br /><br />So, if want to see a horror-movie, just watch 'Scream', but if you want to laugh out loud and have a good time, watching some kids running through the woods screaming at each other and showing of their inability, watch dark area.

A few years ago I saw this remake of the sixties classic with the Mini Coopers for the first time and I remember liking it a lot. Now, about two years later it was shown on television and I just wanted to know whether I would still like it as much as when I saw it in the cinema. Well, the answer is yes.<br /><br />The movie is about a team of robbers that will do one final job in Venice, Italy. The plan is flawless and the execution perfect. They escape and won't have to work for the rest of their lives. But there is one problem they didn't take into account: Someone within their own ranks doesn't like to split the loot, but wants to keep it all for himself, even when that means he will have to kill the rest of the crew. But all but one survive and they are out for revenge. One year later, in Los Angeles this time, the surviving team members create a smart and devious plan to steal back the gold and get their revenge on the traitor...<br /><br />The story on itself is of course not very original, since this is a remake of the original 1969 movie, but it has plenty of goodies to offer to make you forget about that. This is a typical heist / action movie but it certainly is one of the better ones in its kind. The action is very nice, the landscapes and Venice are real eye-candy, the story is OK and the special effects are stunning. Even the acting is very good, something which you'll not often see in an action movie. I must admit that I really liked what I saw and I give this movie a well deserved 7.5/10.

I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.<br /><br />Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.<br /><br />This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you.

'The China Syndrome' could not have been released at a better time: twelve days after its release, the infamous screw-up in Three Mile Island happened. But even if that (and/or Chernobyl) had never happened, this movie remains an important look at what could happen through mismanagement of nuclear facilities. Jack Lemmon turns in a five star performance as the supervisor trying to expose a cover-up at his nuclear plant, with Jane Fonda playing the reporter trying to investigate, and Michael Douglas plays her cameraman.<br /><br />I don't know whether or not the current threat of a terrorist attack makes 'The China Syndrome' more disturbing, but either way, it's still definitely a movie that everyone should see.<br /><br />I hope that those people who spent years pushing nuclear power saw this movie just so that they could know that their views and ideals are completely defunct.

The unflappable William Powell. He is a joy to watch on the screen as he makes his way through situations without a care in the world. He always seems on top of his game and shows little care for anyone who doubts him. The murders are projects, barely human beings. I have noticed this is a staple of the whodunnit. Other than an occasional weeping widow, the victims fulfill the function of being the reason the movie exists. Nothing more. There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting along the way and Powell is a master at this. There is a lot of political incorrectness, especially as it relates to the Asian performers. This is a little hard to take. The cast is great, and Curtiz's direction is also a consistent asset.

Creep - 'Your journey terminates here.' Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.<br /><br />No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.<br /><br />This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.<br /><br />Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.<br /><br />It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid 'hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond' thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.<br /><br />'Your journey terminates here' is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid.

After watching this film I experienced a new sensation. I had watched a film in which the lead actor had put in a performance that almost rivaled the legend Chevy Chase in 'Fletch'. This isn't to say that the performances are comparable, but both give practically flawless delivery of their lines. That actor is Marc Singer! Singer is Jack Ford, the 'Droid Gunner' of the title, grinding out a living collecting the bounty on androids.There are some mutants, topless pleasure droids(!), a Scandinavian smuggler, and possibly a half-hearted attempt to make a statement on class or maybe even globalization or......... well it doesn't really matter. What matters about this film is the dry manner in which Singer delivers his lines resulting in side-splitting humour! What matters about this film is that director Fred Olen Ray seems to realize that serious sci-fi very rarely works, and when your budget is skimpy it is best not to take yourself to seriously. Olen Ray has said that everyone involved in this film had great fun and this transfers onto the film.I dare you to criticize a film that allows itself to portray futuristic Earth as eternally dark and neon-lit and then ends in a 'pipes and valves' warehouse. Self parody is a very redeeming quality. To summarise, Fred Olen Ray is an ambassador for independent film making and Marc Singer the perfect B-movie lead.If only Olen Ray could draft in Tim Thomerson to the equation then we'd have a film on our hands.

I would like to tell you just a few things before considering seeing this movie. If at one point or another you thought you've seen good camera work, be prepared to be amazed by this movie. For the record, this movie was made in 1957 in Russia, but the technique used here is probably something that we've seen much later in the western world...about 20 years later. The level of emotions through the film varies quite a lot: happiness -love-war- despair-joy, but in the end you remain with something quite unique: the joy of seeing one masterpiece of filmmaking. The young directors from our time should study more this kind of movies and maybe they will be able to create something similar..even though I think movies like this are very hard to come by... If you've seen 'I am Cuba' , then this movie would appeal to you very much, but if not, be prepared for a unique experience. The Russian directors have something in common: very small budgets, great actors, and a joy of creating art...and yes, they are able to create more masterpieces than all the western world together. I am not a big fan of Russia, actually I hate everything that's communist, but the film making in that part of the world, manages to create such feelings that are hard to describe.<br /><br />Enjoy it.<br /><br />

I consider myself a huge horror movie fan. One night I wanted to just rent some newer horror movies to make fun of. Then, I rented Milo. I was so surprised by this movie. It scared the hell outta me. That's not something I can say very often. Usually Halloween only scares me.<br /><br />Two other friends watched it with me, and were left with a disturbed feeling. A good feeling, if you ask me, after watching a horror movie. If you are unaffected, then what's the point.<br /><br />This movie was original. It didn't follow the normal guidelines of a horror movie. That's why movies like Valentine bombed for me.<br /><br />Of course, many are left with unanswered questions, as most horror movies do. It is worth the rent though.

I enjoyed the movie and Kellie Martins performance immensely. It's the kind of movie I can show my family and has an example of a young woman placed in extraordinary circumstances finding the courage to do the right thing in the face of extreme danger.

Did you find the title funny? Oh, you didn't? Well that's because you're uptight. Learn to laugh because if you're not laughing, you're not living. So please, lower your standards regarding to what you believe is funny to that of a mere infant. Now do you find it funny? Still no?! OK, that's because you're full of yourself and get offended too easily. If you're not laughing, you're not living. And if you don't like me then send me hate mail so that I could write another review and state how much hate mail I get and try to twist this into making it seem as if I am a bad ass. Are you laughing at my hilarious title yet? Still no?!?! OK that's it! You are a racist! You HAVE to laugh or else you are a racist. Why else would you not laugh? Oh, It's not funny!?! No, this can't be why. I want it to be funny so therefor it is!! Laugh damn it!!!! Please!!! Deedeedee!! Durdurdur!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK that's it. Where's my notepad and pen? And where's my Richard Pryor DVD's? I need to write some jokes for my show.<br /><br />And...... scene. Thank you, thank you.<br /><br />This is basically what you'll get from Mencia for about 23 minutes. Please, do yourself a favor and change the channel when this bum's show comes on. Even basic cable channels have things 100x better than this. I'm not even saying this because I hate him. I'm for real. This show is like watching grass grow. Not sure though, at least grass doesn't steal jokes. I'm honestly trying to save YOUR time. I even tried watching his show. I told myself 'maybe he isn't THAT bad.'. But no, he is. I completely zone out when I watched his show. I tried to collect myself during the commercial break and focus on the show but I couldn't. I zoned out again, I think I was thinking of something more interesting like re-making my bed, vacuuming or folding my socks. Before I knew it, the show was over. Yeah, it's that bad.<br /><br />Here's my final thought - There's so many things you can do with 30 minutes besides watch this guy shout about nothing for half an hour. Don't watch a show that tries to shove racism in your face in vain. I can support shows that try to ease the tension of the race wars but this guy just provides more racism rather than stop it.

Why else would he do this to me?<br /><br />Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... 'good' Dean Cain is.<br /><br />Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.<br /><br />To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?<br /><br />How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?<br /><br />Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.<br /><br />Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.<br /><br />That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...<br /><br />Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!<br /><br />fade to black<br /><br />my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.<br /><br />But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.<br /><br />

Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.<br /><br />'The Enemy' Naming it 'Action Movie' would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.

*SPOILERS INCLUDED*<br /><br />With a title like 'Bleed', you know the creative juices weren't running on high when this puppy was conceived. The movie is your basic run-of-the-mill low-budget slasher movie. Oh sure, it tries to be creative with the premise of the 'murder club', but we learn that was just a joke anyways. Okay, for those who really care about these things, the basic plot is that new girl in town starts dating her co-worker. He invites her into his circle of friends, and at a party, they tell her how they have a 'murder club' and they murder people, blah blah blah. Well, we learn that it was all a joke, but not before our heroine kills a lady in a parking garage. Now, the 'members' of the Murder Club are being killed one by one. Oh, and the bad guys wins and the movie ends on a downer. By that time, you won't really care though.<br /><br />In retrospect, the first 10 or so minutes of this movie make no sense. The motivation for the killings in the beginning of the movie is never explained. I would say that it was a way for the director to pad out the film, but on the DVD there are deleted scenes! I'm not sure why anyone would want to see more than the feature length version of 'Bleed', but apparently the people behind the DVD thought the viewers would be clamoring for more. On the box, it says there are Easter Eggs, but why the hell I would want to waste my time looking for extras on this movie is beyond me. <br /><br />I was expecting a bad movie, and 'Bleed' delivered on that front. It wasn't a fun bad movie though. Everyone looks good in the movie, and there's plenty of nudity, but the acting is just awful. My least favorite character is the guy who ends up being the killer...I think he's supposed to be funny and amusing, but he just ends up coming off as a tool. I think the funniest moment of the movie is when our heroine kills the lady in the parking garage, in a hilariously unconvincing death. Heroine shoves the women into the parking garage cement pole, and the woman looks like she barely hits the thing, and she spits out a mouthful of blood, and 'dies'. <br /><br />For those who think that movie making is an intricate, creative process done by professionals, check out 'Bleed'. It will change your mind, and you'll realize any hack get can a movie made. <br /><br />Otherwise, don't waste your time or money on this.

I first saw this film about 11 years ago when my former college Accounting professor recommended it to me. I was amazed that a movie from 1968 could so coherently and hilariously portray computer crime. Maggie Smith is delightful and Ustinov plays the 'retro hacker' perfectly. 'O Nolo Mio'!!!!!

Absolute masterpiece of a film! Goodnight Mr.Tom has swiftly become one of my favourite films of all time. Nobody should miss out on seeing this film, it's just too good! Mr.Tom is perfectly portrayed by John Thaw as the harsh old man who becomes a soft father-figure when William Beech(Nick Robinson) is sent to him for evacuation, almost like 'The town mouse and the country mouse'. A truly heart wrenching film. The director knew exactly how to turn book into film and he has done so extremely well. The film was so excellently shot that the emotions of the characters and what was happening made the audience feel a range of emotions from love to fear, and these emotions could turn on a six-pence. Set in a time of turmoil during World War Two, this film also shows the difference between the cities and the countryside, they are almost like different countries. An absolute must see, those who don't are missing out on a truly amazing and brilliant film.

According to the blurb on the back of the DVD case; Jonothan Ross 'laughed until a little bit of wee came out'. I suspect that that has more to do with his being full of it.<br /><br />I never watched the series for one reason or another, so maybe I'm missing some essential cues. As to this movie; I watched the first 45 minutes or so. I laughed once, smiled once, then reached for the newspaper whilst waiting for something else entertaining to happen. Nothing did.<br /><br />Evidently intended to be a surreal spoof upon life in the post-Python, gross-humour style, this one falls absolutely flat. There's been a host of comedy series on television in the last few years, not the least of which were 'Bottom', 'The Fast Show' 'The Vicar Of Dibley' and 'Father Ted', each one engaging a group of bizarre but hilarious characters and sketches. Any one of these could knock this crap into a cocked hat.<br /><br />If the series was anything like this movie; I'm surprised they got the funding. Happily it was one of those £2 Tesco bran-tub purchases and is now in the local charity shop.<br /><br />The moral of the story is; don't believe the pundits, never pay top dollar.

Just imagine what school would have been like in a world like this: the kids are one big gang who have really good taste in music and unite against bad headmasters and teachers. 'Rock 'N' Roll High School' is taking place in that world. It's like a Ramones record coming to life. The characters are all as silly, innocent and charming as the Ramones' songs, and the music itself is, of course, fantastic. High school comedies have really changed over the years, if you compare a movie like 'American Pie' with this late 70's classic, where no tasteless sex jokes are made at all. Since a remake is apparently in the works, it can probably be expected that the charm of the original will get lost along the way and will get replaced by vulgar, half-funny dick jokes, as Bill Hicks used to call them. However, the main problem will be that the Ramones CANNOT be replaced. They were the perfect band for this movie and no one else could even come close to taking their place. So, the best thing to do would be to leave the original alone, as quirky and charming as it is. Gabba-gabba hey!

Stumbling upon this HBO special late one night, I was absolutely taken by this attractive British 'executive transvestite.' I have never laughed so hard over European History or any of the other completely worthwhile point Eddie Izzard made. I laughed so much that I woke up my mother sleeping at the other end of the house...

In the standard view, this is a purely awful movie. However, it rates a near perfect score on the unintentional comedy scale. I can think of few actual comedies that make me laugh as hard as I did watching this movie. Andy Griffith's ghost dressed in Native American garb dancing sends me into hysterics everytime. I wouldn't waste the gas or energy driving to the video store to rent it, but if you happen to be laying on the couch at 3 in the morning and it comes on TV, check it out.

Maybe it's because I read Peter Straub's wonderful book before seeing the film, but I was terribly disappointed by this movie. In my opinion, the filmmakers removed everything that made the story interesting and unique, and replaced it with more common Hollywood-style elements.<br /><br />It's too bad, too, since this movie has a terrific cast, particularly Fred Astaire, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Melvyn Douglas, John Houseman, and the then-largely-unknown Alice Krige. They're just not given very much worthwhile to do.<br /><br />In fact, I was all for leaving halfway through, but a friend convinced me to stay to the end, as he was sure it had to get better. He apologised to me during the closing credits.

This movie was sadly under-promoted but proved to be truly exceptional. Entering the theatre I knew nothing about the film except that a friend wanted to see it.<br /><br />I was caught off guard with the high quality of the film. I couldn't image Ashton Kutcher in a serious role, but his performance truly exemplified his character. This movie is exceptional and deserves our monetary support, unlike so many other movies. It does not come lightly for me to recommend any movie, but in this case I highly recommend that everyone see it.<br /><br />This films is Truly Exceptional!

And that is the only reason I posses this DVD. Now I haven't seen the first Nemesis film, but I did check the info out of it and I here by say: What? Why? Because in the first film Alex was male. But then again the first one was set in the future, so maybe this Alex is brand new one and the scientist just happened to make Alex female this time. Who knows, at least it wasn't addressed in the film in any way.<br /><br />Here's a quick summary of the plot: Alex, still a baby then (or how ever you want, as it was, is, in the future) escapes with her mom using a special time vessel and ends up in the 80's Africa. There mommy gets killed and Alex (Sue Price) grows up in a African tribe. Then the tribe gets slaughtered by a cyborg from the future and Alex then runs and hides and finally she kills the cyborg. So there. Does sound familiar, doesn't it?.<br /><br />Terminator isn't the only film being ripped here, Predator gets its fair share too and I think the first Fly movie, the Vincent Price one, gets special nomination for giving a solid base to build up your cyborgs head from.<br /><br />Lets see, what else? Okay, the film was quite standard small budget flick, but it did have bad special effects for a mid 90's film. It would have looked okay for a 80's flick how ever. Biggest problem is the plot. Things just happen and the viewer is barely interested. Nemesis 2 isn't the crappiest piece of cinema I've had pleasure (?) to watch but it does come damn close.<br /><br />I won't say a thing about acting, because let's be honest here: did anyone expect Oscar worthy performances here? Oh well... at least I did find Sue Price hot in that amazonian warrior way.<br /><br />A 'real' movie rating: 2/10 There isn't a lot of pros about the over all quality. And despite of the very basic plot the film it self makes very little sense.<br /><br />A camp movie rating: 4/10 I did get occasional laughs from the sheer badness of the film, so it does have small merits in it.

Who votes in these ratings? 'Jacknife' is a beautifully acted, brilliantly observed piece of work, with actors on top of their game, especially Ed Harris and the peerless Robert DeNiro(please don't mention Marlon Brando in the same breath of this man-see 'Taxi Driver' for confirmation of this point). Is it a 'mundane' movie because it doesn't have sex/meaningless action/nudity in it. This movie is about the complexities of the characters involved. Ed Harris makes you feel every moment with him and his emotional outburst towards the end is heartbreaking. The part where he orders a young man in a bar to take off his army clothes is a wonderful observation of how fashion and the movies exploit tragic situations and how frustrated real men must feel to see a young upstart sporting military attire. While we are on this subject, 'Casino' 7.8 out of 10? One of the greatest films of all time, from one of the greatest directors, starring THE greatest movie actor of all time, with the scariest film psychotic gangster ever, only warrants just above average? COME ON!!!!!

Milla stands out in this movie because of her personal sense of style and the way the clothes hang on her. I have learned to hate that crumpled little three-year-old face she makes whenever she pretends to cry. It makes any points she is trying to make as a serious actress drop off quickly. Of course, in a movie with a BALDWIN and Denise, she still shines as a mature actor person. David seemed to be doing Woody Allen by way of Howdy Doody. Not a single word or gesture in the entire movie seemed sincere or even sincerely acted. 'How Harry Met Sally' and 'Two Weddings and Funeral', even 'Sleepless In Seattle' had scripts, locations and ACTORS. The script seemed to be a string of bad and crude gags separated by a LOT OF TALKING. The locations seemed to be within a few blocks of each other. There are only two actors in this dishrag of an indie flick, Milla and the lady who played the chick who was into the stars. I watched most of this through the first time with the sound off, just watching Milla. That subscript gag was old the first time I saw it and it's a silly rip off of a song in 'How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying'.

I do not know if this movies problems are more the fault of Direction or Script. As you will see in many reviews the editing style is way overdone. It is absolutely distracting and without substance, which could be considered a good thing if you look at some of the quotes from the movie. I do not write many reviews here, but felt this movie was so awful that it deserved comment. Movies like this erode at Movie making as an Art form. Movies like this one show more and more clearly that the current Reality focus in cinema is revealing the quality of the characters behind them. People hone there craft, there 5 senses, and there business sense - overlooking there own inner life. However I do not put blame on them, it is more and more the unfortunate condition of this age - qualified by films like this one. But by proxy these Manufacturers I would dare not call Artists vomit there lack of inner life or regard onto the screen - diffusing it to everyone. A story of bounty hunters, guns guns and more guns, heavy handed flaunting of sex - for the oh so popular actress (did they write the lap dance scene after they signed her?), over saturated, over exaggerated, one liners, non-linear plots. All different and yet all the same. Annoying overwhelming music to push the emotion down your throat. A story? a development of character? or just withheld, missing information, revealed at the end to create the *effect* of a story - as if one took place. It altogether lacks anything remotely resembling subtlety. It is a caricature of stereotypes and genre. Where are the films with Awareness? What about subtlety of sound and music that you are not even aware is there? What about the depth of a look? What about editing with a point about mind and consciousness? yes even in action films this can happen. Sure they have honed a craft; but what use is it without soul or wisdom? of insight into the human condition? Can the people who commented and said that this is an apogee of art, or compare this to Picasso and others - I say put this next to Gandhi or the Godfather, even the original trilogy of star wars or the lord of the rings; then look me in the face and say it again. It is a good crew, but they need some help with depth and story. I hope they get it because I like the crews previous work. better luck next time.

I do not think that this movie deserves the low rating that most will give it. It's one of the best 'teenager' horror films I've ever seen; and that's saying a lot. Nothing is left without an explanation to back it up, the characters and plot break countless horror movie stereotypes, and it has got nothing to do with some other horrible pieces we've been submitted to lately. (A clear example is the mindless 'Saint Ange'.) The first 30-40 minutes might be downright boring with the exception of the beginning, although some minor light mistakes can be easily spotted. After the arrival to the village, though, the horror -a different, twisted kind of horror- begins.<br /><br />With the plot and the details, goofs are minor; the characters are this movie's strongest point, given that so many clichés are broken in it. For example, the two main male characters, Nick and Wade, are not by any means the idiotic types we're used to; although Dalton might fit better in this stereotype, not is he the only one to pay for this lack of consciousness. Some scenes are truly, satisfyingly horrible, making up for tense moments scattered around all the film. And, in the end, and although everything is decorously explained, it's easy to see that things won't go so easy to the surviving characters.<br /><br />The only errors I can see, and which do not imply continuity (IE, Carly not finding her own cut finger in the unconscious Bo's pockets) is the illumination, which is somehow annoying during the first, boring 30 minutes. Although, plot and effects-wise, everything is drastically and cruelly twisted with the arrival of the main characters to Ambrosia, that little village in the midst of nothing, so I'll give it that. It's been pretty much argued that about 70% of the movie is illogical; 'How can two people build an entire house of wax?', 'Where do they get all the wax from?'. These wouldn't be uprising questions if people would have paid more attention to the movie. The Sinclair brothers did not build the House of Wax; their mother worked making actual wax figures, and they were exhibited at the museum. And the scenario where Paris Hilton's unfortunate character meets her untimely death is the answer to the second question; what is with all the personal objects (mobile phones, cars, clothes) of the dead people? Using their third brother as a connection with the exterior, it's pretty much arguable that the Sinclair twins should obtain the money necessary to buy the wax, in a WWII-type fashion.<br /><br />So, that aside, I think the movie deserves a lot more than it gets, and nobody should lose the chance to watch it. So go see the House of Wax. Right now.

I got this movie from eBay mainly because I'm gay and I love Til Schweiger. However, it's one of those movies that, when you watch it a second time, you never say to yourself, 'Hmm. I forgot about this boring part. I'll go make popcorn.' It doesn't have that part. It's a very fluid and constantly interesting film. And, yes, Til Schweiger is worth it, if nothing else. But, it's a great movie even for straight guys.

Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian 'sandals and toga' extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why 'Gladiator' went over well, but 'Gladiator' did not have all the romance novel sex.<br /><br />Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.

In the area of movies based off of screenplays from some other area (or whatever the title for that Oscar is), 'Holes' has credibility. I think it is better to have the author create the screenplay because the author is the creator of the material. If the author can't write a screenplay to save their life, then have the author and someone fluently talented in the area of screenwriting create it. Aside from that, this review is about 'Holes'.<br /><br />The reasons start here and a spoiler maybe found within. (1) Louis Sachar is an excellent author and it turns that he can write a screenplay. I watched the movie and then read the book and both didn't reek incoherence or stupidity. Some people just have natural talents that can transcend mediums. (2) The best performance award goes to Shia LaBeouf for his portrayal as the main character. He 'dug' himself into the role. I wanted to see his character vindicated before the conclusion. (3) To ratchet up the suspense a bit, Andrew Davis was brought in. This is the man that made Harrison Ford run hard and run fast. He also can make Steven Seagal smash some heads. As for this film, he made Shia and the rest of the boys dig some holes. In other words, he can make an 'action-packed' movie and make it well even if 'action' isn't the main genre isn't 'action'. (4) My second favorite performance goes to Jon Voight as Mr. Sir. Sometimes a goofy role brings out the best in a performer. When Voight uttered the line 'Once upon a time...', I must have laughed for half a minute because it was so funny. He is capable of comedy and he should investigate a few more roles that let him to exercise that talent. (5) Tim Blake Nelson is very solid whenever he is given a solid script. This is probably the second best role I have seen him in (second only to 'O Brother Where Art Thou?'). (6) I love the choice of settings for the movie. I didn't know California was that dry or that barren. I guess population and land area figures both can be misleading. (7) The overall look of the movie made me want another bottle of water. One could only imagine digging a hole in that barren area for half a day. (8) The rest of the cast should deserve a box of Kudos bars as well. Sigourney Weaver, Henry Winkler, Khleo Thomas, Jake M. Smith and the rest of the bill were tapped because of their talents and it gelled very well. Great cast even though it was anywhere near ensemble. (9) I like a movie that doesn't explain anything right away. When Stanley got clocked in the head with those baseball cleats, it made me want to see how weird the events could get and that is a key ingredient in making a good movie. (10) Disney Pictures (not Touchstone, DISNEY!!) needs to make a few more of these mature juvenile films. It was palatable for me and I am a college student. The last mature juvenile Disney film I saw was 'Something Wicked This Way Comes' and 'Holes' possibly exceeds it (like the election in 2000, it's still to close to call). Disney can make greatness if they decide to expand on this genre and keeps artistry in mind over milking a cash cow when they see it. Ten reasons give a score of ten!<br /><br />All in all, 'Holes' is one of my favorite Disney films and probably one of the best this year (granted this movie may not be Oscar material but whoever said Oscar material is the best material?). In terms of being a movie from a book I have read, this ranks behind 'Fight Club' on my list (which is on top). For being a film I saw in 2003, this is in the top five (somewhere behind 'Mystic River'). Compared against 'Harry Potter', Stanley Yelnats easily takes a shovel to Harry's head and brings the final death blow with a smelly sneaker to Potter's nose. Everybody should see this movie because it both informs and entertains. Here ends my rant!

A recent survey of children in the UK re-enforced the notion put forth by this film 27 years ago. That being more than anything else, young people want to grow up to be somebody famous. It used to be doctors and firemen that kids wanted to be. Now, everyone wants to be famous. Fame is a story of a group of kids accepted into the High School for Performing Arts in New York City. We seen them first audition, then take classes and learn about life for the next four years. The film has a lot of fine qualities, but ultimately leaves you feeling a little unsatisfied.<br /><br />Alan Parker's bold directorial style fits the story pretty well. The film has been classified as a musical, but more than anything it is a drama. Musical numbers and dance routines break out here and there, and Parker keeps them as close to realistic as they really could have been filmed. The acting is for the most part top-drawer with a few exceptions. The pacing is a little off, particularly toward the end of the film, but by that point, the story has already taken a few wrong turns anyway.<br /><br />First off, the auditions at the beginning of the film should have weeded a couple of the principle characters out. It seems unlikely that anyone would show up and audition for one department, then stumble their way through admissions to another. Some of these people just don't look that talented or interested to begin with. Once the first year of classes gets going, the film settles into a nice groove. The interaction between students and teachers is very well handled, and it leaves you wanting more. The film begins to lose itself later on as we see more and more of the students' lives out of school. Some of these people just aren't worth caring about.<br /><br />The film's biggest mistake is making the Ralph Garcy character so prominent. This guy is a boorish; self-centered jerk. A 'professional a-hole' as he proudly declares on stage during his comedy routines. The audience is supposed to somehow feel for this guy and his tragic personal situation, but I was just hoping they'd throw his butt out of school. Irene Cara, Maureen Teefy, Paul McCrane and the late Gene Anthony Ray are the people you'll care about by the time this film is over. Try as I might, I still can't develop abs like Gene Anthony Ray had in this film.<br /><br />Overall this film is good. It is memorable, interesting, and full of daring scenes and performances. It runs maybe a little too long, and perhaps some of the wrong characters get fully developed while others kind of hover in the background. The musical numbers are great, and there is even a surprise or two waiting to be discovered by the time the film is over. Though not perfect, Fame will be a film that lives on in one way or another for many years to come.<br /><br />7 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.

Absolute must see documentary for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of this story. Told with unflinching eye and with gripping style. If you think conspiracy theories are for paranoid disturbed people, this could change your mind. Something for you feds too: A good model for government coverups! If you like your news all tidy and easy to consume this is not for you.

This is the worst exercise in middle class pretentiousness yet to hit our television screens. I unfortunately did not see it when it was first shown but paid for the joy of watching six hours of excruciating drivel - and I'm still waiting for the laughs to arrive. I love Tasmin Greig having been a big fan of both Black Books and Green Wing and therefore know that she is capable of the very best of comedy parts. However, she played this part as well as she was able considering the lack of any decent comedy material provided. Please broadcasters bear in mind that the Trades Descriptions Act may well be invoked if you continue to bill as comedy material which is at best pseudo psychological romanticism and at worst a drama which poses as a quirky comedy to hide the fact that is neither fish nor fowl.