Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

Follow

Mushroom Solutions 2

As the title suggests there is a philosophical, meritocratic thread running through this film: if a man has the talent and looks to find his way into society and money what might be the outcome if he is denied it for failing to have the X factor? This question is unsatisfactorily dealt with in this adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's book and left me rather cold along the way.<br /><br />Matt Damon is the Ripley of the title and apart from blagging his way on a funded jaunt to Europe falls under the spell of his commissioned target, Dickie Greenleaf (Law). Homoeroticism and social insecurity get all tangled up in a violent conflagration which escalated and complicate themselves for the rest of the movie. Law, Damon and the damningly pleasant Paltrow as Dickie's girlfriend are OK. I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's cameo-ish Freddie Miles, the bluff society friend that Ripley can never be. The problem is that the story is lumpen without arc - or redemption, for that matter - which makes it rather difficult to swallow. 4/10

One of the best romantic classic,teen deviyaan is a film which is all about selecting among equals your most soft emotion,love.This is a simple story of a middle class man who came into limelight by his poetic talent and charming personality. He is attracted towards three women and vice versa, one a Hindi movie star, the second a rich lady and the third who lives in his neighborhood.<br /><br />The situation put him in confusion as he has to decide one of them as his life partner.He asked for few days from all of them.Ultimately he goes to a astrologer and asked him who he loves most.His confusion is no more and he came to know the lady living in his neighborhood who really cares for him and loves him is his true love.Devanand played the lead character and has fully justified his contemporary romantic image.

First I am a teenager. OK, and I have to say this movie was pretty good. I think any kid ten and under will like it, but people my age an up might be a little, um, a, well, we'd describe the movie as LAME! But I liked it. It may be that I still act like a kid, or I visit a cattle farm every weekend, but this movie was cute. I did like how the actors were like kids, not little blonde cutesy pies, wearing three layers of clothes, a trendy hat, and about a thousand assecories (like most shows today, to name a few, Drake & Josh, Lizzie Mc Guire, well any kid show.) And the setting was perfect, but there was a flaw. The family was in debt, right? Why in the world did their internal house look like something out of a "western" versace store? That was one flaw.<br /><br />The cameos are great, there's about five hundred of them, and the only explainable one is Julia Roberts being the main little girl's aunt. How in the world did they get everyone else? This movie seemed to be on a tight type budget.<br /><br />I liked this movie, it was a fun one to watch, and I thought some parts were far fetched (Like a cow selling for $750,000? Ha! my butt a cow sells for that much!) But otherwise it was good, I liked it, and I could watch it again. But I'd never buy it, there's not even special features on the DVD! What's up with that? But do rent it, especially if you have little kids running around the house.

My best guess is this piece of work will come out on DVD sometime before Christmas.<br /><br />This movie was terrible. The time line jumps all over the place. This wouldn't be so bad if it left some suspense for the end. It was entirely predictable. Bitch girls pick on outcast, outcast wants to know why they hate her so much, bitch girls die a terrible death, outcast girl goes home and looks crazy. Outcast girl brought evil spirits with her, makes neighbors go crazy and kill each other. Creepy kid understands what's going on. Oh, and the younger sister not being good enough for Mommie, sick mother sending younger daughter to bring the golden child home. <br /><br />To be fair, there were some great moments here and there. First of all, Sarah Michelle Geller's character dies in the first few minutes. Definite plus. Didn't see that one coming. I didn't expect the wife to pour bacon grease on her husband's head, either. If the movie had kept up those kind of thrills, I would have loved it. The beginning showed so much promise. <br /><br />I was disappointed because I enjoyed the first one. It made me jump, I didn't expect most of what happened, and though I questioned some of the movie, it was still a fun watch. I didn't watch any previews for this the sequel, because I wanted to be surprised. I was, but in the wrong direction.

well i wasn't sure what the film was going to be like as i had only seen a little clip but i was thinking its going to be good and i was right i watched it twice on the day i got it and well it is my favourite film.<br /><br />i think Alison Lohan played the part of beth really well she is such a grate actress and the writer must have gone into a lot of research to find out about bulimia although the ending when beth is in the hospital an has 2 Horus observation after meals because iv been told like 1 house is OK and also that hospitals doesn't help bulimics as iv been told which is probably why I'm still at home even tho my sister and mum would like to have me hospitalised as i to have bulimia but this is a grate film i recommend it to any one with or with out an eating disorder or for people who know some one with eating disorders as it can let them in to the lives of a bulimic person and see the world how they do a bit over all a grate film and i recommend it to any one and any type of person

My daughter, her friends and I have watched this movie literally dozens of times. I bought it twice and some little girlfriends absconded with it. Subsequently, I rented it so very many times. It just never gets old!!! Blockbuster doesn't even have it in their listings anymore and I have tried to buy, find, rent it for over 5 years. Without a doubt, this was and is my most favourite movie of my daughter's childhood...it has it all! We laughed, we cried, we discussed real life and how hard some children have it in the world. There was nothing pretend about this movie. We related to every second and every line Bill! Thanks a million for restoring our faith in human nature. Sincerely, Shelleen and Kailin Vandermey. Craven, Saskatchewan. CANADA,eh!!! :-)<br /><br />August '07 update:<br /><br />Who are we to judge if a rich woman falls in love with a poor man; or a man who has love chooses to raise a child who is not his own. It may not be my or your life. It is not only believable, it happens every day. Thank God! Keeps my faith in human nature alive!!! celebrate!!!!

Tierney's an authentic tough guy, but this movie misfire from normally competent RKO undercuts his impact at every turn. The script is about as plausible as OJ Simpson at a Ten Cmmandments dinner. Just count the times Tierney's incredible car companions swallow one lame excuse after another for his evasive and violent acts. The old cliché about it "only happening in the movies" applies here in spades. Then there's the guy playing the watchman, who appears to have wandered in from a boozy WC Fields comedy, ruining the menacing mood in the process. The static one-room sets don't help either, and neither does director Feist's obvious lack of feel for the material. Then add a final car chase missing both imagination and pay-off, and the results are pretty flat. In fact the movie only picks up in the station-house scenes where hard-bitten cops discover the hidden powers of innocent-looking gas station attendants. Too bad that Tieney's career never really gelled. I gather that was due largely to being as big a tough guy off-screen as on and getting in one sleazy scrape after another. His ice-cold manner and clarity of emotion remind me at times of Lee Marvin at his tough-guy best. Anyway this project might have worked as a radio play, but as a movie with a promising noir title, it's a disappointment.

Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, but does takes an extremely inordinate amount of time to say it. ***

I was surprised at the low rating this film got from viewers. I saw it one late night on TV and it hit the spot - I actually think it was back in 1989 when it first appeared. Yet I remember it pretty well, with a nice twist or two, and an interesting ambiance on a windmill farm. Michael Pollard looks suitably seedy for his role which pretty much sums up the unfulfilled early promise of his career, and everyone else plays it pretty straight ahead. I definitely recommend it as a rental, although some of the themes, which might have seemed a bit edgy in 1989, now may seem tame, which is a shame, considering that contemporary "edginess" is often just used as a necessary marketing tool, sort of like clamoring just to get noticed.

I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good.

Looking backwards to that year 2002 when "Furia" was made, one can easily recognize the heralding sings of today's New Generation in Romania.<br /><br />The main qualities of "Furia" stand in a very solid script, with a substantial dramatic core and a really professional developing, plus a cast of excellent actors. All four leading roles are admirably performed, both with depth and casualness: Dragos Bucur and Andy Vasluianu confirmed, since then, being two of our best performers today, Dorina Chiriac follows them closely, and Adrian Tuli, a non-professional (in real life, a graveyard manager!) cast as Gabonu, was a genuine revelation! <br /><br />Further, Radu Muntean's directing is skilled and expressive, creating in a very compelling style that feeling of "a fateful night" and inescapable destiny. One can easily pass over the few awkward and even failed moments, since time proved them to be only the uncertainties inherent to a debut, never repeated in his subsequent movies: "Hârtia va fi albasträ" and "Boogie".

Inexplicably, I watched this movie for the very first time just a couple of days ago, and understood from the very beginning what all the fuss is about. This movie held my attention from beginning to end, and ran me through the whole range of emotions (and might have helped me discover a few I never knew about.)<br /><br />Dustin Hoffman absolutely shines as Ted Kramer. He is absolutely convincing as a man having to juggle at least three different challenges in life: jilted husband, workaholic ad executive and loving father. Meryl Streep as Joanna Kramer was less central to the movie simply because Joanna was absent for a good part of it, but when she was on screen she gave Hoffman a run for his money. The true standout, though, (in my opinion) had to be young Justin Henry as Billy Kramer. Children are always the innocent victim in a marital breakdown, and Justin seemed absolutely natural and completely believable in this role as he deals with the conflicting emotions around his mother and his adjustment to life with Dad, only then to have the confusion around why he should have to leave his Dad when it was his Mom who walked out on him. Young Justin didn't seem to miss a beat in this very difficult role.<br /><br />All in all, this is an excellent, Oscar-worthy movie whose only weak point was what I thought to be a truly disappointing decision to go for the sappy and happy ending, which was totally unrealistic considering the destructive custody battle Ted and Joanna had gone through. But there's not much else to complain about here.<br /><br />9/10

I personally liked this movie and am alarmed at the rating's some people have given it. It is a movie based on a comic book and it is animated, now if you don't like comic books or animation then of course you won't like this movie so why did you watch and bother to rate it is beyond me. Though, if you are a fan of Interesting, strong characters and heroic(sexy) women kicking butt and saving the world(hell) you will love this movie. I thought the story really pulled me in and it was a very cool movie. Quite anime-esque or more like some of the American movies following this new trend of adult animation. Like Titan A.E. meet's the live action version of Punisher. In the end I highly recommend this movie the comic buff and super hero fan or anyone with an open enough mind looking for a fun movie.

Sadly not available on DVD as yet, but worth pursuing on TCM or VHS. A secretary believes her boss is wrongly accused of murder, and courageously takes on many dangerous characters in an effort to establish the truth. A movie with many twists and dark alleyways, none of which I will mention! The jazz band sequence where our heroine seeks the information about the killer, is one of the most erotic scenes in Hollywood history, despite being at very low budget and made during WWII in black and white. Despite the low budget - Long Island looks somewhat mountainous - this is a movie of original style and outstanding vision. Ella Raines was a great actress discovered by Howard Hawks who knew much about these matters, casting the feistiest women - Joanne Dru, Hepburn, Angie Dickinson, Lauren Bacall, Ann Sheridan - of their era. Robert Siodmak was of one of several German, Hungarian & Czech film-makers - Sirk, Wilder, Zinnemann, Lubitsch, Curtiz,Lang, etc - who émigrés relocated to Hollywood, and brought a highly original fresh vision with them. Sadly Ella Raines was never given such a great part again, and eventually ended up in poorly produced westerns.

I picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation ("If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!") on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like "Death Proof"... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue. <br /><br />Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.<br /><br />The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the "art". I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle.

We have high expectations with this one . . . because its Zombi 3 the official sequel to Zombi 2 and directed by Lucio Fulci . . . however . . . its co-directed by Bruno Mattei (from Night of the Zombies) and not written by Dardino Sachetti but by Claudio Fagrasso (Night of the Zombies) and its shot in the Phillimines like Night of the Zombies and resembles Night of the Zombies (Hell of the Living Dead) a lot. as a result its more like a companion to Hell of the Living Dead than Zombi 2. Fabrazio DeAngelis who produced Zombi 2 and its editor Tomassi (?) and efx gianetto De Rossi gave Zombi 2 its magic . . . Zombi 3 is not magical . . . its like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter. But over the years, I've grown to accept Zombi 3. I could swear I saw a version where a soldier was bitten on the arm and went to the hotel room . . . there was a senseless Fulci-cut and the Mattei/Fulci-cut is the one on DVD.

Even by the standards of most B-movies, this movie is by far the worst I've ever seen. The graphics are so poor that a man in a monster suit looks more realistic. the ocean water effects are especially laughable, including the one scene where they board the mini-sub, and the "water" looks like its frozen in place. The problems with this film are so numerous that I'll just stop here with the details. needless to say, I kid you not when I say that even Uwe Toilet Boll himself could do a better job. Avoid this movie at all cost, there are other B grade movies out there that, despite being horrible, are at least a good way of passing the time by.

"Rush in Rio" is, no doubt, one of the most exciting DVDs I have purchased. Although I am a biased Rush fan of almost 20 years, I found this performance to be flawless. The music is heavy and sharp (which sounds great on any surround sound system), the band is energetic, the crowd has a constant smile... it's like they were able to capture every concert I've been to. For any Rush fan, this DVD is a must; if anything, just to see the "Boys in Brazil" documentary (which reveals the travels of this rather isolated, personal band). For any non-Rush fan, this DVD is an enjoyable concert. Rush fans know the talent of these three Canadians. We have rather firmly stood by them for years. I've shown this DVD (or portions of it, anyway) to those who have never heard of Rush, or those who think Rush is less than good because they do not appeal to the pessimistic masses of rock (i.e., sex, drugs, and a drunken frenzy). The bottom line is this DVD is worth every penny and more than worth the time to view it.

"When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spinoff of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy."<br /><br />In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.<br /><br />No. this is an altogether different story.<br /><br />In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.<br /><br />To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.<br /><br />With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.<br /><br />This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.<br /><br />If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look.

**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink–-the "Cinemagic" process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties.

Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.<br /><br />Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.

Film is designed to affect the audience and this film left me speechless. Gorgeously photographed and well acted with dialog that approaches poetry the film involves lust, hate, murder, rape, theft and deception. It weaves an intense web that left me unable to take my eyes off the screen until the closing credits. The story is sweeping. It takes the audience from the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War to the human wreckage left behind. Roger Casamajor and Bruno Bertanzoni are two young actors who command the screen. Supporting players are excellently cast and lend a real sense of authenticity. Sets, lighting, scenery and cinematography are wonderful. I absolutely love the photography.

Her bit-part as a masseuse, in the lurid sequel to the original 'Emmannuelle', evidently gave someone the bright idea of putting a spanner in the works of the French soft-core series' gambit by inverting the Caucasian carnality and casting Javan stunner Gemser in a leading role in this, the rather tame first of a series of sexploiters that became increasingly depraved as sleazier directors took on in-name-only sequels.<br /><br />Someone (and surely not the English-language over-haulers Warner?) was also anticipating an 'A Star Is Born' type meteoric rise out the results, judging by the way the actress is credited merely with the eponymous moniker of the on-screen heroine, albeit with a couple of consonants sacrificed as insurance against litigation.<br /><br />Gemser's tenure in the series saw her as an 'intrepid' photographer, allowing of course for all manner of subsequent globe-trotting adventures. But, whilst she may well have been one the very most beautiful actresses on the screen at that time, any thespian talent that may have been there to discern becomes mired in the same sort of unfeasibly facile cogitation ("I have to confess that since I've been in Africa, I find white skin less appealing...") that was to be found in the French films.<br /><br />And in this particular entry, much to the consternation of the raincoat brigade the essence of on-screen carnality is as much to be found in puerile symbolism (pumping engine pistons!) as it is in prosaic couplings - although naturally these include generous dollops of 'exploratory' lesbianism. Connoiseurs of kitsch are however guaranteed a continuous stream of aural delights, what with such epithets of ethnographic wisdom as "I do nothing to be a perfect black, she does everything to be a perfect white".

I had to watch this film because the plot was so outrageous and the film lived up to expectations. In fact it makes for quite uncomfortable viewing at times. Unlike other Meyer films, the sexual antics are down to a minimum. Some of the scenes of violence are unnecessarily gratuitous and offensive. The plot is chaotic and some of the acting and lines are dreadful.<br /><br />The film is a strange combination of sado-masochistic fantasy combined with a window of the brutality and immorality of the slavery and fails on all counts. It's as though Meyer was trying to make up for the sexploitation/ blackploitation by having a higher moral message. Meyer knows we feel a bit guilty about getting turned on by the blatant dominatrix connotations of the early scene showing Lady Susan wielding a whip in a provocative outfit. He then tries to steer back to the righteous path by turning it into a film about the triumph of good over evil. However, because they cancel each other out, you end up with nothing.<br /><br />Because it so bad in so many ways, it is actually worth watching if you appreciate the art of making an awful film in the worst possible taste. Perhaps, because it is so bad, we almost let Meyer get away with the unacceptable.

Interesting topic. Pathetic delivery - script and direction. <br /><br />Our hero, Miles, thaws out and has his emergency world-first life restoration surgery. This is where the fun begins. The underlying issue is that Miles has NO SOUL!!! This is used to explain his quasi-erratic behaviour of being indirectly responsible for two deaths (I believe this to be the total number of deaths in 104 minutes). <br /><br />On the livlier side, Miles prefers the odd glass of brandy, blazing fireplaces and his young, maturing female cousin. The finale does indeed do justice to this film.<br /><br />Some thoughts: 1. Producer $$$ were parted with to create this tripe. J.D. Feigelson was the script writer and a (or sole) producer. Looks like he did not learn a lesson on "how not to bring an interesting idea to life" when one views his other writing credits. This will support the credibility of this script.<br /><br />2. Now available on DVD!!! This IS truly scary. Should be forever "Bottom of the Shelf" in VHS format.<br /><br />3. A re-incarnated human without a soul will default to an evil entity. <br /><br />4. The score offers minimal support. Not even an in-form Jerry Goldsmith could save it.<br /><br />5. Deserved the 0230 time slot on TV and a touch more entertaining than the infomercials + test patterns it was competing against at the time of my viewing.<br /><br />6. Thankfully did not spawn any sequels ala Wes Craven's "Nightmare" franchise. Chiller Too: The Return Return of Miles, or something like that.<br /><br />Despite my rating of 1, I still recommend this movie as a great example of how to kill an acting or script-writing career. This should apply to directing, however Wes Craven will eternally be exempt due to his sole good piece of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" 1984.

Basic slasher movie premise, 3 young ladies wreck their car and end up staying with a creepy family. YAWN.<br /><br />Watching 36 minutes of a premonition of OJ's car chase with a white sedan instead of a bronco. YAWN.<br /><br />Old lady with hot and cold dementia controlling her daughter... YAWN<br /><br />23 minutes of watching the actors eat - YAWN Trying to identify what the heck they are eating ... OK there might be a drinking game here ... nope - YAWN <br /><br />Complimentary shower scenes ... OK got my interest for a couple of seconds.<br /><br />Completely random and uninspired killings ... YAWN <br /><br />The ending ... dude! that psycho is deranged - why couldn't the rest of the movie be like the last 5 minutes... unfortunately that is it - My advice - fast forward to the last five minutes and watch that and then put something good in the player - for me I am going back to sleep.

God this film was just so boring apart from the music which i really loved, i mean what was the point in actually making this movie please anyone who reads this review do not watch this film, it is a waste of time.<br /><br />Emraan can act but was really pathetic In this film, i am actually ashamed to be one of his fans especially in this movie, it was just really bad.<br /><br />Celina is just another pretty face with no lack of talent what so ever, she can't act at all, and there was no point of her being in this film, as for the other girl Radha she was okay i guess but could have done better.<br /><br />what a waste of time. please buy the great music and don't watch this movie.

A great opportunity for and Indy director to make an interesting film about a rock musician on the brink of stardom. It could have been a decent film if it would have dealt with John Livien's traumatic past and how it is torturing his psyche. Instead, it is a ridiculous attempt to identify John Livien's life with John Lennon's. John Livien's suicida mother's hero was John Lennon and she wished for him to become as powerful and prolific as Lennon himself. Instead of focusing on John Lennon's musical brilliance, and his wonderful ability to bare himself for others to learn something about their own life, it showed Lennon's legacy to be that of a confused, drug addicted soul, who should looked upon as a God instead a man. I am a huge John Lennon fan and this movie reminded me of another "crazy" person obsessed with Lennon, Lennon's killer , Mark David Chapman. Lennon was a man who was brutally murdered by someone else who had an identity crisis with Lennon. Do we need to be reminded of that? John Lennon gave so much to the world with his music and honesty and I was repulsed to see another disturbed person, as the main character in this movie obsessed by Lennon, and not show his beautiful contributions to the world. Yoko Ono graciously honored John Lennon's memory,by making the memorial in Central Park to give his fans a chance to pay their respects, and remember John. Instead the director of this movie chose to use that site to have the killer attempt to commit suicide. I found this so disturbing and disrespectful to Lennon's memory. He was a man of peace who died a brutal senseless death, and to see such violence near this site felt like a revisiting a terrible wound for any Lennon fan. It ruined the movie completely for me . It could have been a decent movie, but it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Let John Lennon, and his family rest in peace and not be reminded of his vicious murder by this irresponsible movie.

I ended up liking this movie but it was not the easiest to get through. What makes the movie great is the music and the scenery. The songs are beautiful and the musicians are talented. A great job was done to show different settings for the Rom people.<br /><br />However, the viewer was not guided enough. A more in depth history of the Rom people would have been nice. Only a fraction of the of the spoken words were given English subtitles. In addition, more explanations about the settings and who was their and some of their challenges would have been appreciated too. It would have helped if there were a narrator too explain about customs, dress and music.

Quite a lot has been said about this film and its landmark importance in forming the language of film. If you are interested in film history, to truly understand the innovations Eisenstein brings to the medium you might try viewing Potemkin along side most any film made before it (those of D.W. Griffith offer a good contrast). It should be allowed that Eisenstein was not the only montage theorist and the principles of montage editing would likely have been discovered by another given time. However, even today, few directors have approached the skill with which Eisenstein created meaning through the combination of images at such an early point in the evolution of the medium.<br /><br />If you are not interested in that sort of thing, Potemkin is still one of the most beautiful and moving films ever made. You should see it, buy it, and tatoo it to your chest.

OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.<br /><br />The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason. <br /><br />The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.<br /><br />My ratings:<br /><br />funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100

Absolutely corrosive! Director Arthur Hiller and writer Paddy Chayefsky dismantle the American hospital system with this wicked comedy/drama/whodunit. The hospital depicted here is fraught with problems...from protesting neighbors to irate patients to a potential serial killer on the loose. George C. Scott is the top doctor who, on the brink of his own nervous breakdown, gets involved with free-spirited Diana Rigg and her wacky father Barnard Hughes. Alternately depressing and uproarious, THE HOSPITAL features some of the most acid-tinged dialog imaginable (note how Scott describes his love making session with Rigg). It also has a lot of great vignettes: Scott berating head nurse Nancy Marchand after one of here underlings accidentally kills a doctor; daffy administrator Frances Sternhagen trying desperately to collect insurance info from a waiting room full of sick people; Scott getting sobering advice from the hospital psychiatrist after telling him of his woeful home-life. All of the acting is first-rate. Scott and Rigg are dynamite and Hughes is a real surprise. The movie is a masterpiece with Chayefsky's script earning a well-deserved Oscar (over such stiff competition as KLUTE & Sunday, BLOODY Sunday). The opening narration is priceless.

"The Beguiled" is a strange work among Clint Eastwood's oeuvre. By 1971 he had become well known as the star of action movies, not only Westerns (the genre in which he first made his name) but also war films (such as "Where Eagles Dare") and cop thrillers (such as "Coogan's Bluff"). Yet although "The Beguiled" takes place during wartime (the American Civil War), and was made by Don Siegel who had earlier directed Eastwood in "Coogan's Bluff" and was later the same year to direct him in "Dirty Harry", it is not an action film in the traditional sense. In most of his previous films Eastwood had played an active role, but here his role is largely passive- his character, Sergeant John McBurney, is a wounded fugitive forced to rely upon the charity of women in order to survive. Even while serving with his unit, McBurney played no active part in the conflict; he is a Quaker, whose religious principles forbid him to bear arms, and was serving with the Union forces as a medical orderly. <br /><br />The film is set in Louisiana towards the end of the war and starts with the injured McBurney being discovered by a young girl named Amy and brought back to her boarding school. The school is a small one, with only two teachers and a handful of girls. Although some of the girls are ardent supporters of the Confederate cause and want to hand him over to the authorities, the headmistress, Martha Farnsworth, decides to shelter him and tend him, fearing that his injuries are likely to prove fatal should he be sent to one of the Confederacy's notoriously harsh prison camps. <br /><br />Although McBurney scrupulously follows the teachings of his religion as regards pacifism, he is not so scrupulous when it comes to following its teachings on the sin of fornication, and as he starts to recover he makes full use of his opportunity to exercise his charms on both the staff and the older girls, and he wins the affections of number of them, including Miss Farnsworth, her assistant Edwina and Carol, one of the older girls. Even twelve year old Amy appears to have a sort of childish crush on him. In the sexually repressed atmosphere of the all-female school his presence gives rise to jealousy and hatred, and Miss Farnsworth, rejected in favour of the sluttish Carol, plots a terrible revenge. (Interestingly, the one female to resist McBurney's blandishments is Hallie, Miss Farnsworth's black slave, even though he tries to win her round by pointing out that he is fighting to free people like her). <br /><br />"The Beguiled" has been described as an anti-war film, but this seems to me to be a misconception. The film is not really about the rights and wrongs of the Civil War or of war in general. The only acts of violence we see are perpetrated by non-combatants, and they are motivated by a desire for personal revenge, not by zeal for the Confederate cause. It would be more accurate to see the film as a drama about the psychological stresses that can be caused by the peculiar circumstances of war. <br /><br />At the beginning the school, set in a beautiful old antebellum mansion, seems like an island of peace amid the war. The building is in the Classical style, associated with order, harmony and restraint, but the story that unfolds within its walls is one of disorder, passion and violence, qualities associated with the Gothic school of writing which in the 19th century was often regarded as the antithesis of Classicism. The film can be seen as falling within what has been called the "Southern Gothic" tradition in American film and literature. <br /><br />The film was not a great hit at the box office, possibly because Eastwood was cast so much against type. It is not perhaps his best film, but it did show that he could expand his range and play something other than action heroes. (In "Play Misty for Me", his first film as director made the following year, he was again to play a "passive" character in danger from a vindictive female). There are some very good performances from the female members of the cast, particularly Geraldine Page as Martha Farnsworth, outwardly a respectable middle-aged spinster but inwardly a woman of strong passions. (There are hints that she may have been having an affair with a man whom she passed off as her brother). There are also good contributions from Elizabeth Hartman as the shy, repressed Edwina, who falls in love with McBurney and rejects the idea of revenge and from young Pamelyn Ferdin as Amy. (Amy is an animal lover- a key moment in the film comes when McBurney kills her pet turtle- so it is interesting that in later life Ferdin became an animal rights activist). The one character I was less keen on was Jo Ann Harris's Carol who seemed too modern, like a swinging seventies chick transported back in time to the 1860s. The film is notable for the emotionally intense "hothouse" atmosphere which Siegel brings to it. This will not be a film which is to everyone's taste; some will find it too overwrought and melodramatic, and some have found it misogynistic. (Judith Crist called it a film for "woman haters and sadists"). Others, however, may find it a compelling psychological drama. 7/10

this movie is so complex that it can be given any description and still roll with it. you have a insecure, troubled and fascinating main character (played by Jean-Pierre Léaud) who is trapped between two (no, three) women. we listen to his social, philosophical and moral idiosyncrasies in interminable monologues, we see him working his magic around the three women that he loves. this could be the premise for a fowl movie, full of rigid, cold, uninteresting commentaries. yet director Jean Eustache manages to keep it fresh, ironic and witty. being such a long movie, one cannot but burst into laughing when, after 2 hours of speaking politely, Jean-Pierre Léaud all of a sudden screams on the phone while he remembers a cheesy line from a movie. this kind of situations are purely cinematographic and cannot be fully restored in a commentary. nor can someone restore the tragic and painfully beautiful monologue of Françoise Lebrun towards the end of the movie. 3 and 1/2 hours and worthing every minute.

TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, "no good at what I'm being a success at", and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.<br /><br />Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.<br /><br />This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.<br /><br />This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.<br /><br />The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.<br /><br />Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.<br /><br />Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.<br /><br />Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he "stinks" or "doesn't get it", Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.<br /><br />Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.<br /><br />James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star.

Ya know what? Family Guy started out as something fresh, funny and more original. The random humor USED to be funny. I actually used to think it was the best animated sitcom next to The Simpsons. After watching the new episodes that aired for the past few weeks; I grew fed up with the show relying too much on random humor to be funny. South Park was right about FG dead on when they brought up the Manatees and the idea balls.<br /><br />And watching the show itself, I don't understand why my parents like it so much; there's nothing great about it. The "Intellegent" humor is funny and would've been funnier if the show didn't rely on randomness.

The story of peace-loving farmers and townspeople fighting for land, water, law and order, and the respect and ultimate subjugation of the long entrenched cattle interests and their hired guns had been worked over better in earlier (Shane) and probably later films as well. There's some good action scenes and the general layout of the story, excluding a disappointing ending, is well executed. Law and order and religion have established roots in the town, but the old order of cattle drives, cowboys, and gunslingers is still around as well. The clash of the two occurs in a nicely staged ambush scene where the townsmen ride right into a trap. Granger, an ex-gunfighter, plays the guy who is shunned by the very townspeople who need his expertise with a gun.

Ugh. This movie has so many unbelievable plot contrivances that they made what could have been a good movie into a hideous mess. The story is halfway decent, but the holes in the plot make the execution literally laughable. We're actually supposed to believe that the Secret Service would go against all common sense and allow the President of the United States to be put at unbelievable risk. If this is an indication of the kind of thinking that passes for good judgment among the President's protectors, then we're all in trouble. Roy Scheider turns in a good performance as the President, but it is unfortunately offset by the truly loathsome acting of Patrick Muldoon (who somehow continues to get jobs in Hollywood based solely upon his good looks and his uncanny knack of smirking at every opportunity, regardless of whether the script calls for a smirk). Perhaps someone will see this and be inspired to make a good movie from the premise--or, perhaps someone will see it and say, "Hey, if they can get a movie this bad made, maybe I can, too!"

This film is so bad it simply defies reality. The filming is grade school material at best, the acting is pathetic and the director should forever be banished from film making in any form. So bad it can't even be watched as comedy such something along the lines of Showgirls. The ONLY thing this DVD had going for it was the cover art. <br /><br />All I can write to those of you who haven't had the misfortune to witness this is to please do yourself a well deserved favor in advance and don't waste your time or your money on this piece of garbage. If you want to see a movie for the comedy aspects, there are many other more worthy in such a realm than this trash.

In the 3rd installment of "Left Behind" the makers did not care to put ANY KIND OF CONTINUITY into the plot. Although all weapons on the planet have been confiscated by the United Nations, World War III suddenly begins at the snap of a finger. Within a few split-seconds the ex-lover of one of the main protagonists moves from passionately seducing him to outright hatred to a melancholy confession of love without any trace of direction. <br /><br />But foremost this film is really an irony-free zone. After the president of the United States accepts Jesus as his savior he immediately becomes a suicide bomber and blows up a skyscraper in the middle of the city. Osama Bin Laden will be very jealous when he sees this film!

All I can say is, this movie is made for the Lifetime Channel on TV, which means no solid characters, no particular style, weak acting all kinds of suggested sex but no-breasts and tushs (because boy, that would just catapult the film into the depths of sleaze wouldn't it?) but the heavily simulated sex, well, that's OK. <br /><br />When watching these films I have to ask myself, when will these types of TV channels and their advertisers ever grow up? I think these companies are actually way behind the times. They really have no clue what the younger generation is in tune with and if they knew they would demand we change. The whole point of many American TV channels like these seems mostly to regurgitate the same sanitized, diluded garbage over and over like a generic movie assembly line. I guess it works for them... or at least it has. Not sure about the future though. <br /><br />Don't bore yourself to death like I did. Seek out some real TV movies on HBO, Showtime, IFC, Starz, etc. Any channel that puts effort into their work and doesn't have to ask a priest what they can or cannot show.

I have wracked my brain for another film that reminds me of this one. I really can't come up with one. I think it's because most of the films that take on this topic (war, peace, violence) are in a fixed documentary style.There are some terrific ones out there, all of them better known than USA T.M., I'm sure, but they are intended to be informational and to bring your emotional response to the surface through intellectual means. This DVD, in some ways may seem more intellectual but it really isn't. It is philosophical, maybe, but it bypasses the information mode and goes directly to the same place that a piece of music does. It makes you feel but sometimes you don't even know why. You are just taken somewhere on a wave of feeling. When you watch it, notice how well it is put together. It may not be for everyone but it is for everyone who look for a rare cinematic creation that respects you.

hello, looking for a movie for the family to watch on a Friday night? Can't find what your looking for? I thought this was an extremely enjoyable movie. Good for the whole family. I found that it had a remarkably rare combination of it being appealing to both adults and children alike. It was brilliant, to say the least. Bruce Willis's acting was top-notch, there was a lot of humor in it and overall, a great movie. In my opinion, it's a must-see movie. And I don't think that about a lot of movies, believe me when I say it takes a lot for a movie to get me to think that. It's clear that there was much work done by Bruce Willis and cast to get this movie done. Excellent story, good acting, and again, overall a thoroughly enjoyable movie.

I saw it at a German press screening. Without giving too much away: Most critics really seemed to like it very much. There was even applause afterwards, which is quite unusual for that species. From my point of view and until now, it was the funniest movie of the year. It keeps the charm and wit of the three W+G shorts and it is enlarged with many references to these and other movies. Of course, there are obvious allusions to monster- and werewolf-movies, especially to "An American Werewolf in London", "Jaws", "King Kong" and even to Peter Jackson's "Braindead"/"Dead Alive", but also to other genres.<br /><br />Characterization was better done in "Chicken Run", but that movie had a complete new "cast" where introduction was necessary. Here, you are already able to know the two main characters. So, the new "Wallace and Gromit"-movie is enjoyed best if you watched (and liked) the shorts already, yet it also works on its own. "Chicken Run" had the more convenient, but also more "storytelling" plot. Instead, this new Aardman masterpiece keeps that crazier and somehow more "isolated" feeling of the W+G shorts. Children should also enjoy it very much, especially because of the sweet rabbits (if you love cute bunnies, this is a must-see for you!!!) and because Gromit has a lot do to and really steals the show (children also love dogs... :-) ). But many jokes are thought for a more adult audience (there are even soft sexual allusions in it). The movie manages, like "Shrek 1+2" and "The Incredibles", to fulfil high level entertainment for the whole family, with adding a British and at least a little bit darker edge to the humour of American animated movies.<br /><br />The animation is – as expected – superb, and they kept true to the Aardman style because they didn't put in too many digital effects - I realized just a few when it came to Wallace's inventions.<br /><br />Finally, the score works fine in the movie, although one of the main themes definitely is "borrowed" by Randy Edelman's "Dragonheart" score.<br /><br />The bad thing is: It will probably take another six years from now until we can see a new animated gem from Nick Park & Co.

This film proves you don't need a Hollywood budget to make something fun to watch. What stuck with me is how the crew from different locations was able to pull together with no promises of riches to make something just because they believed in it. I think anybody who makes low budget movies can relate to certain scenes such as actors who just can't get that one line, being bothered by the police, and having most of the crew disappear after the first week. Nobody got paid for this which says a lot for the people who had to travel cross country and for the long hours spent editing. After watching Stuie sell his personal property, use his own money, and trash his house to make the movie I am a bit curious how close his wife may have come to leaving. Good job to all.

In August Days/Dies d'agost Marc Recha has given us a sun-saturated Catalan documentary-style road movie that's mostly a meandering improvised meditation on brotherhood and reclaiming the dead. The beautiful sometimes large-scale, richly atmospheric 35 mm. landscape images, nice soundtrack and Catalan-language narration are enchanting as a mood piece, if one is content with a trajectory that hasn't much momentum and doesn't lead anywhere in particular. Filmmaker Marc Recha and his non-identical twin David are the stars and the narrative is voiced by their younger sister. Marc had been researching the life of Ramon Barnils (1940-2001), a socialist editor who had been a family friend. He felt he was saturated with information and had to take a break. The break turned into making this film, which seeks to capture the mood of the interviews with Barnils' associates, thoughts about the Spanish Civil War, the drought season they were experiencing, the rugged landscape, the Recha brothers' affection for each other, swims and suntanned nudity and whatever characters or stories they ran into as they camped out of their van. This leads to pursuit of a giant catfish and the temporary disappearance of one of the brothers. In the end David has to go back to Barcelona to be with his daughter and Marc has to return to his project, and there it ends. I found it fascinating to listen to an extended narration in the Catalan language with its blend of Spanish and French-sounding words (perhaps linked with Provençal?). This isn't a major film but it commands attention and makes sense as a film festival choice with its clean visual and auditory beauty and its way of playing around with genres and blending autobiography with fiction and documentary in a fresh and thought-provoking way.<br /><br />An official selection of the 2006 New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center.

A CRY IN THE DARK <br /><br />A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.<br /><br />Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.<br /><br />The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.<br /><br />While the famous line "A Dingo Took My Baby!" has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.<br /><br />The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.<br /><br />The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.<br /><br />The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.<br /><br />In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.<br /><br />More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams "The dingo took my baby!" watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.<br /><br />... A ...

Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back.

Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.<br /><br />A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' "un maximum d'"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson.

Over-powered mobile suits that can annihilate entire armies - Check! Weapons that hardly need to be aimed and still annihilate everything - Check! Mobile suits based on angels - Check!<br /><br />OK - its a Gundam series. This one, Gundam Wing, has good character development, real-world complexity, interesting ideas and some pretty eye-candy.<br /><br />With characters, the initially weak Relena Dorlan (later Peacecraft, then back to Dorlan) gets stronger and more independent (although is still absolutely besotted with Heero Yuy, the series main character). The aforementioned Heero, initially a cold, hard butcherer, becomes more and more human, while still remaining in-character. And seeing the lost Millardo Peacecraft (whos nomm de guerre is Zechs Marquise) float between OZ, freelance, and command of White Fang shows how some people can really lose themselves in their own creations.<br /><br />The complexity of the political and military situation is also quite good - reflecting how the real world works. However, in 49 half-hour episodes, it does become a bit of a liability in that this complexity isn't used to its full potential.<br /><br />The ideas at the core of the series - the necessity of fighting, the desire for peace, etc - are ones that resonate even today. In retrospect, the series was ahead of its time, what with the "War on Terrorism" and all. But its exploration of these ideas, the monologues, especially those of Treize Kushrenada, is an incredible dramatic piece, forming some of the best writing in the series.<br /><br />But that sometimes good writing is also sometimes extremely poor, which dramatically causes it to lose some of its edge.<br /><br />In terms of eye-candy, which is what this one has in bucketloads, everything from the mobile suits to the battleship Libra (No not the tampons you idiot!) is wells designed, and explodes in big balls of orange (which is bad, because better animation would've had better explosions). But who cares?! Stuff explodes, and thats all that matters.<br /><br />In short though, the sheer complexity of the series means that if you miss out on a few episodes, you've missed out on a lot. The poor writing can leave you cringing, and sometimes the animation makes you go "WTF?!?!" But this is made up for in its classic animation style, its scale, sparks of incredible dialogue, and its more mature exploration that one expects of such Japenese animations.

Times are tough for Angel Town, gangs rule with an iron fist and for reasons mostly unknown (Mainly due to embarrassing writing) the gangs want a street kid, Martine to join the gangs, so they beat him up everyday. However due to the presence of an Olympic kick-boxer (Olivier "World's lamest actor" Gruner) named Jacques, hope is on the way. Angel Town is seriously one of the most inept message movies ever made (And I've seen my share) it seems to consist of the idea that all gang infested neighborhoods need, are French kick-boxers who can't act. Worst of all there are so many awkward moments it's just truly hilarious. Best of all comes from the exchange between Gruner and Aragon which basically sums up how ridiculous this thing is. To Wit: "You like the fighting? (Olivier grabs his Asian best friend in a headlock) I could kill him right? When I want him dead he dies! The reason why I don't want him dead is because i'm afraid of him, and I know that if I kill him his son and wife will kill me, that's why he doesn't die!" <br /><br />Of course the fact that it's wrong to kill someone, let alone your best friend is of course left out of the equation. Odd.<br /><br />However don't let me make this sound that I hated this movie, far from it, it's so terrible it's priceless. The biggest laughs come at the end in the disastrous finale which sees Grunner going one on one with gang-members who (the film's biggest logic gap)decline the use of pistols. Also a handicapped Vietnam vet helps out by shooting his machine gun at the gangs, while Gruner kick-boxes the rest. All of this set to the sound of horrible "Mexican" accents and surreal energy that make this one memorable for fans of cinematic trash such as this.<br /><br />The other treat about this movie, is that for some reason Olivier Gruner never attends college despite that's the main reason he's here in the states and not in France getting it on with his girlfriend (In a graveyard in the film's awkward beginning) Angel Town is without a doubt a failure on all conceivable levels but if you laugh at moronic martial arts movies with insane levels of action that make no sense on any level, this is the perfect movie for you. On the other hand make sure to down tequila, like the laughable opening song details "Ain't no mercy in Angel Town" <br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)

There are few really hilarious films about science fiction but this one will knock your sox off. The lead Martian's Jack Nicholson take-off is side-splitting. The plot has a very clever twist that has be seen to be enjoyed. This is a movie with heart and excellent acting by all. Make some popcorn and have a great evening.

A group of heirs to a mysterious old mansion find out that they have to live in it as part of a clause in the will or be disinherited, but they soon find out of its history of everybody whom had lived there before them having either died in weird accidents or having had killed each other.<br /><br />You've seen it all before, and this one is too low-budget and slow paced to be scary, and doesn't have any real surprises in the climax. No special effects or gore to speak of, in fact the only really amusing thing about the whole film is the quality of the English dubbing, which at times is as bad as a cheap martial arts movie.<br /><br />3 out of 10, pretty low in the pecking order of 80's haunted house movies.

A fantastic cinema experience. I really enjoyed seeing this truly magnificent film in the theater when it came out. There is nothing to add, except that is a terrible shame that sir Albert Finney still isn't accepted by the AMPAS (American Academy). After roles in such films as Tom Jones, Murder on the Orient Express, Under the Volcano (to name only few - for these he was nominated for the Oscar), The Dresser is arguably his highlight, yet...<br /><br />I know, Oscars are just popularity contest, but if Americans like British actors and actresses ("and the Oscar goes to" Jeremy Irons, Daniel Day-Lewis, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Glenda Jackson etc. - and they all deserved the award!), why they always left sir Finney with empty hands?<br /><br />On the other hand, they gave it to John Wayne and Marisa Tomei (in Cousin Vinny). I don't know, should I laugh or cry.<br /><br />If you have seen the two leads in The Dresser, you won't forget what is the art of acting. Watch this film and enjoy! I recommend it to everyone who loves art.<br /><br />I give 9/10 for this excellent film (1 point missing for non-cinematic material, after all it is "just" a theater)<br /><br />Note: My criteria is much stronger than this on IMDb (10 only for the cinematic masterpiece that should/could last forever).

Of all the movies I have seen, and that's most of them, this is by far the best one made that is primarily about the U.S. Naval Airships (Blimps) during the WW-II era. Yes there are other good LTA related movies, but most use special effects more than any real-time shots. This Man's Navy has considerably more real-time footage of blimps etc. True, lots of corny dialog but that's what makes more interesting Hollywood movies, even today. P.S. I spent 10 years(out of 20) and have over 5,000 hours in Navy Airships of all types, from 1949 through 1959. Proud member of the Naval Airship Association etc. [ATC(LA/AC) USN Retired]

Nothing revolutionary here; just impeccably elegant, restrained cinema.<br /><br />GARDE A VUE is confined almost exclusively to a drab police station, and mostly to one interrogation room, but director Claude Miller (who made the wonderful film THIS SWEET SICKNESS, among others) intercalates spare glimpses of exterior tableaux as minimalist locale scenography. Miller's restraint, especially early on, is breathtaking, and his exquisite handling of the consequently-pivotal interior mise-en-scene makes for captivating viewing.<br /><br />Lino Ventura is superb as usual, succeeding to legitimize a character that, on paper, is cliche: the laconic, hard-nosed, world-weary homicide detective. Ventura lives the role, making it completely believable, even though the script allows us little access to his inner workings; the film ends at the very moment it appears he will be forced to confront his failure for the first time.<br /><br />Michel Serrault is equal to the task as the suspected child-killer who shrewdly spars with the single-minded flic. The exchanges between the two are more-often-than-not pregnant with tension and the aura of a constantly metamorphosing playing field for a battle of wits. Serrault's character is by turns deplorably haughty and cunning, and pitiable; then later....<br /><br />The "message" of GARDE A VUE, if one were to search for one, is a condemnation of police methodology and the kind of pressures that make a cop over-zealous to, if necessary, close cases at the expense of justice. For most of its length though the film shines as nothing more than an exemplar of how to turn a potentially soporific set-bound scenario into a suspenseful drama of the utmost cinematic economy.<br /><br />

Chucky's back...and it's about time! This time, with the help of Jennifer Tilly and a little spell from Voodoo For Dummies. Well, at least with this installment, the camp is back. This was the more gruesome of this series, so far. It has some good twists and some good action scenes. <br /><br />This one was by far, the most fun of the series, and successfully, if unintentionally, bridges the gap between pure horror to horror/comedy. <br /><br />I am looking forward to Seed of Chucky. It'll be a hoot!<br /><br />"Jesus, the music scene's gone to h3ll since I've been dead!" Chucky<br /><br />We needed the levity, as the doll thing's getting old. The added comedic element, and the better action scenes brings this one back up to equal the quality of the first, when the idea was fresh and new-ish.<br /><br />6.8/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

Audiences today will probably watch a film like Ossessione and not really consider how unprecedented it was during the time when it came out. The structure of the film really divorces from sap-happy Hollywood conventions—as well as other major theatrical elements. It relies more upon depicting reality in a very grim and sober light. Films of this nature—the neo-realist films—were made to reflect the darkness felt during post-World War II times. Ossessione tackles some fairly provocative issues that were probably unseen on screen prior to the war, including: adultery, conspiracy, murder, pregnancy, etc. Aside from the one crane shot and certain musical swelling moments, the film aesthetic is very raw and gritty: shot on-location, uses natural lighting and most likely non-popular actors. All of these elements helped convey the issues explored in the film, yielding the following theme: Negative karmic repercussions will haunt those who deliberately act immorally.<br /><br />The two leads—Gino and Giovanna—are polar opposites, yet both carry the mentality: we're bored and we want to be entertained. Gino is a drifter; a lone traveler who embraces life and its constant fluctuations. Giovanna is a bored house-wife cemented in the familiarly of marital permanence: she doesn't want to leave her home and husband, but would rather remain where she is because it's safer. Gino's lifestyle represents the ideal lifestyle Giovanna craves; the only difference is that she's too afraid to live it herself—that's why she falls in love with Gino: he represents everything she wants but doesn't have the courage to get. She wants to live in a world free from the monotony of living with her corpulent husband—Gino is the perfect ticket into that world. The affair that ensues between the two most likely left audiences back in the 40's feeling somewhat uneasy. I mean, films prior to the neo-realist age never showed such scandalous behavior on screen before. To say the least it was probably a bit alarming.<br /><br />In conjunction with the theme, the neo-realist style helps show the negative repercussions of adulterous behavior. Succinctly put, adulterous behavior (as shown in the film) leads to depressing and ultimately deadened lives. When Gino and Giovanna conspire with each other to "eliminate" Giovanna's husband, karma comes to haunt them like a plague after the deed is done. They return to their home: the atmosphere is dark and biting (as can be expected from the neo-realist style). They are not happy; they're actually more depressed. They thought that by eliminating Giovanna's husband that they'd live happier lives, but they were duped. The film ends with Giovanna's death—it being in karmic similitude of her husband's death. I think this is a very satisfying ending for several reasons. Here's why.<br /><br />There's a lot of talk as to whether or not evil should be depicted on screen, and if so, to what extent. I think depicting evil is very necessary if and only if the evil depicted is not being glorified, but rather shows what negative consequences evil actions have. As the subtext of Ossessione asks, is adultery and murder evil? I think the film eagerly responds yes! The adulterous behavior between the two reveals how unhappy they are. Ironically though, towards the end of the film when they seem to be healed of their depression and are seen basking in each other's arms inside the car, the author of the film shows that their happiness is, in fact, a façade: the car crashes off the cliff and into the river, killing Giovanna; the police arrest Gino. I think it was the author's intention to say that even though people sometimes try and justify their immoral behavior, in the end karma will come back to haunt them. I agree. I think the two got what was coming to them because they both were incredibly selfish—always wanting instant gratification and not willing to endure through hard times. This was especially made clear after the first sign of difficulty that Gino and Giovanna experience in their relationship: he can't handle the pressure of living in Giovanna's husband shadow, so he leaves Giovanna and sleeps with another girl. Such is typical of the insatiable, hedonistic personality.<br /><br />All in all, the film seemed very risky for its time. The audience, however, was prepared to see such a film because of the sobriety the war brought. Those pre-war, happy-go-lucky films were no longer being believed. Movie-going audiences were ready to see and contemplate difficult films with complex characters: they wanted to see characters whose lives were entangled in so-called 'sin' because it was a reflection of their own life problems. Ossessione, then, acts as a great catalyst for where the future of film was heading. That is, a lot of the naturalism pieces we see today can be said to have been influenced by the neo-realist film movement.

This was pretty inevitable. This movie borrows from "The Core" and from the film it borrowed from, "Armageddon", and the films it borrowed from and so on. Except this time there's Luke Perry too. This films version of the familiar save-the-world plot involves super-earthquakes beginning in the Pacific Northwest and extending too the whole ring of fire. Its soon determined that everybody on Earth just might be doomed. So the military and some scientists build one of those high-tech drilling machines to go inside the Earth and fix things (it just wouldn't be as much fun if they didn't have to go somewhere like space or inside the planet). There's even a line the tries to make the journey into the Earth sound more impressive than the journey into space (like the one in "Armageddon"). It's a Sci-Fi Network movie, so the script is paint by numbers disaster movie. There is in-fighting between scientists and military guys, there are rock-melting lasers, people die and sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and above all, there are (weak CGI) special effects. Not original and not all that entertaining. This is a movie to watch when you have nothing to do, particularly if you've got beer.

This is an epic film about the unification of the ancient kingdoms of China in the third century BC. What makes it interesting is the tragic downfall of the king and all the palace intrigue going on around him. It reminded me a bit of "King Lear" and some of the other Shakespeare plays.<br /><br />The king starts out with noble ambitions, to unify the kingdoms under one ruler and to stop all the quarrelling so that the people can prosper and lead better lives. He and his childhood sweetheart, played beautifully by Li Gong, concoct a scheme whereby she pretends to go into exile in a rival kingdom in order to recruit an assassin to kill the king, thus giving him a pretext to go to war. But while she's away, the king becomes sadistic in his lust for power and goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />There are numerous side plots that keep the action going. There is the Marquis, who pretends to be stupid and foppish but who's really very clever and wants to become king himself. He fathers two children with the king's mother and manages to keep it secret for years. Then there is the Prime Minister, a political rival to the king, who turns out to really be his father. <br /><br />The assassin is a complex character himself. An adept swordsman and killer, he is undergoing a reformation when the king's lover comes to recruit him. He wants nothing more with killing, but is eventually won over by Li Gong (who wouldn't be?) when he sees how cruel and vicious the king has become.<br /><br />Some spectacular cinematography, especially the battle scenes that are carried out on a grand scale - like they used to say, a cast of thousands, literally. The acting is OK, nothing special. It's the story that's interesting, though at over two and a half hours, it pushes the limit.<br /><br />Definitely worth viewing.

This sad little film bears little similarity to the 1971 Broadway revival that was such a 'nostalgic' hit. Keep in mind that when Burt Shevelove directed that revival, he rewrote the book extensively. I have a feeling that this screenwriter wrought as much of a change from the original 1925 version as well. I played the 'innocent philanderer' Jimmy Smith on-stage in 1974, and thought this $1 DVD would bring back memories. Not a chance. Even the anticipated delight of seeing "Topper" Roland Young play 'my' part was a major disappointment. Three songs from the play remain, and are done very poorly. Even the classic duet, "Tea For Two", is done as a virtual solo. The many familiar faces in this 1940 fiasco do not do themselves proud at all, and the star, Anna Neagle, just embarrasses herself. When I feel gypped by spending a dollar, I know the film must be bad. Another commentator mentioned the Doris Day version, which is actually called "Tea For Two" and is about doing the stage play (the original, of course), so those who are seeking the true "No No Nanette" might find a more recognizable version there.

Have you ever wondered why these guys -- Seagal, Stallone, Willis, et al -- manage to survive all those gunfights in which they're outnumbered? I think I've got it figured out. The enemies always miss, and the hero doesn't.<br /><br />Here, Seagal has a pistol and outshoots a half dozen heavies firing at him from a few feet away. One of the heavies has a shotgun. Or maybe two of them have. It doesn't really matter. There could be a thousand shotguns blasting away at him and Seagal would still emerge with his ponytail intact.<br /><br />And when it comes to mano a mano combat -- forget it. The evildoers may or may not be armed with swords or knives or blunt object but Seagal, with his skill in aikido or tempura or sushido or play-do or whatever it is, brushes them aside with a few dismissive blows. Not only is he a master of these outré skills but his physical strength is Herculean. More than once he snaps somebody's long bones as easily as we would break a toothpick. One he breaks a guy's SPINE over his knee.<br /><br />I'll tell you something. (I'm getting into the spirit of the film here because Seagal uses that line, "I'll tell you something," several times, along with, "What's that supposed to mean?") These guys are fully deserving of extinction in any good Xenophobe's handbook. They are all black, speak with unintelligible Jah-MAY-can accents, wear dreadlocks that look in dire need of a shampoo, they torture and murder with aplomb, and -- here's the worst part. They're unchristian. That's right. They practice voodoo.<br /><br />Actually the voodoo element comes close to being the most interesting element of the film. They got the constituents of the ritual pretty well -- cigar smoke, rum spitting, the sacrificial chicken. They only left out the possession dance in which the spirit rides the dancer. They should have read Metraux on voodoo.<br /><br />Otherwise the plot adheres to the usual conventions. What was done to Jaqueline Bissett by the voodoo-practitioners in "The Deep" is done here to a friend of Seagal's. What was done to John Wayne when he was stuck between trucks in "McQ" is done here to Seagal himself. At the movie's very opening, when Seagal makes a brief speech about having seen too much pointless violence in his DEA career so he's now happily retired, and when we are introduced to his friends and family, I tried to keep track of his affiliates to see if I could pick out which ones would be horribly murdered or maimed to generate his quest for revenge.<br /><br />The acting doesn't really require much comment. But Charles, the Jamaican cop, played by Tom Wright, is really pretty good. Wright has considerable range. Here, he's an associate of dubious allegiance, rather sinister. But in "The Pentagon Wars" he has a comic part that he underplays perfectly.<br /><br />The Jamaicans never flew as movie villains. I don't know why exactly. It's a small movie market. And if you go to Jamaica stick to Montego Bay. However, if you want to see Jamaican voodoo drug dealers as heavies, and if you're in the mood for another typical-standard action flick, this should be a satisfying view.

I really liked this movie.<br /><br />Everyone has something to be blamed for, everyone is real. No paperboard heroes or cold, omnipotent, know-all characters.<br /><br />I read many others viewers here complaining about Anne morality and about James will to maintain his love for her, despite her cheating on him, but I don't agree.<br /><br />I found Anne (Emily Watson) absolutely wonderful and I felt love for her.<br /><br />She was a heavily repressed woman, her actions were not planned: once she started to break free she was in confusion and did many errors. But so it's in real life, when you gain freedom you are likely to do errors (expecially at the start point).<br /><br />Was she a little too ungrateful? Maybe. But we must remember that she is running with her feet for the first time. She knows that James after all is a good man, maybe a little too stiff, serious and work centered; but she also feels the urge to live the life as herself.<br /><br />Is she to blame more than him? I think no.<br /><br />But the turn happening into their lives generates some changes.<br /><br />James instead of letting his wife go out of his life (as other viewers suggested as the right choice) bites the bullet and waits, hoping for the better. He starts to understand that what he superficially though was OK (his marriage) in reality was a control game played by him on his wife.<br /><br />This is not a story with characters having over-emotional and precarious nature (i.e. the usual clichè Latin American or Italian jealous guys), this is a story of men and women that use both heart and brain.<br /><br />It can be very painful but if you really love a person (women or man) and if you are not a terribly unstable nature, you are likely to forgive his/her cheating and let him/her go. Unless you are a jealous, prehistoric, crime-of-passion inclined, possessive and mentally instable individual.<br /><br />A really good movie. The last scene, when James - despite all the things happened before - goes with Anne to the train station is really moving: She is free and He understood what freedom means for a person.<br /><br />Guido

"Uzumaki" takes place in a small Japanese rural town,where people are going mad.They go nuts over vortexes and spirals.The crisis is getting worse,because people are turning into snails and vortexes appear everywhere."Uzumaki" has to be one of the most bizarre and original horror movies I have seen.The plot is really clever and the gore scenes are really funny as the film doesn't takes itself too seriously."Uzumaki" is wonderfully photographed and the use of colors is top-notch.The characters are likeable and there is enough shocking surprises to satisfy fans of Japanese horror.Despite of some hilarious scenes,the overall tone of this film is pretty dark."Uzumaki" is not as good as "Ringu","Ju-on" or "Audition",but if you like Japanese horror movies you won't be disappointed.7 out of 10.

This is the first porn I've ever tried to review. It demands a different approach than usual, since the allegory will not reward dissection. "I'm American. I'm a prudish virgin." "We are European. We are cultured and sex-mad." "It is nice when we all screw each other." Lots to talk about! Well, there kind of is in fact, relative to your average 60s topless volleyball number anyway. And the enervating patina of 'class' at least delivers clean, detailed compositions. But what the hell kind of thing is that to say about a porn? OK then: the only scene I really (rhetorically) got off on was the first time Brigitte Maier steps in. There are efforts to toss in a nice variety of race and age while letting no two men anywhere near each other; the one black guy suffers a premature bout of editorial coitus interruptus. And multiple takes or not, one perhaps undescribable-on-IMDb act does look like it was partially simulated by a surgical hose. Still, I stayed awake, and it was eight in the morning...but what does the last shot mean?!

This movie gives golf a high mark, it was well acted and well directed. Giving you a view of history that some non-sports fans will enjoy. The historic factor alone gives it a high rating, the Brookline golf course was really done well. I am in the northeast and have seen Brookline as a fan, and as someone who loves the game. The movie was well done on all levels. A MUST SEE 5 stars. The acting was superb, Disney has another winner in its bag of Great movies. If for no other reason watch the film to give hope and encouragement to young people whom may not see the hope in their life. I would tell you that the setting, while in the late 1800's and early 1900's is very realistic. The costumes and dialect were right on the mark as well. Above and beyond the call of duty for a golf film. A Must see for fans and non-fans alike.

Robert Lansing plays a scientist experimenting with passing objects through solid matter, but he goes too far one night and unintentionally makes himself four-dimensional! Atomic-age fantasy is rather charming in a very cheesy way. Perhaps it was considered a thoughtful sci-fi in its time (with psychological overtones), yet seen today the film is mildly overbaked and naive; it's a camp-fest tailor-made for TV's late-late show. Wooden performances by Lansing and Lee Meriwether barely rate as one-dimensional, though Patty Duke (playing a cute brat pre-"Miracle Worker") gets a colorful, memorable exit. <br /><br />** from ****

I know that this show gave a lot of liberation to women in the late '90s and early 2000s, but come on! You have a whiner, a buzz kill, and an over-analyzer. This show really made women look bad. I cannot STAND Carrie's analyzing every little thing on this show and that's what really killed it for me. Also, Charlotte's whining about her nonexistent predicaments made my ears hurt and Miranda's cynicism was a complete buzz kill. I mean, can't she just be happy? Samantha was the only cool one on the show and the only one worth watching. There was also a good episode when Nathan Lane was on the show, but that was the only one worth watching--the rest of them were pretty much the same. The humor was drier than a bucket of sand, and not very interesting plot line. All in all, not a very good show and I'm glad it's over.

First off, this movie was a wild ride the whole way. The story of the training of the soldiers, fighting with their superiors, and in the end grouping together.<br /><br />From the very beginning to the very end. This is one War Drama worth seeing if you are in for the constant cussing (at times beyond reason) and the horrors of what boot camp are.<br /><br />The dynamics of how the actors interacted was quite amazing at times, and sometimes humorous. How Bozz (Colin Farrel) deals with Paxton (Matthew Davis) throughout the storyline, from camp to Tigerland, and even in the end helping him.<br /><br />The innovative free-hand filming did add a certain taste or flavor to the film. Constant moving, constant action, and just constant confusion. At times, it was a help. Others, not so much.<br /><br />Throughout the film, it was increasingly realistic. Some points in the film (the sex scenes in particular) seemed to be just a tad too realistic even though they added an effect to the movie that wouldn't have been there without them. it was a very gritty movie, through and through.<br /><br />In my opinion, this is one of Colin Farrel's better movies (if not his top performance). The acting for every character was superb. 9/10 -sysnuk3r

<br /><br /> I suppose this is not the best film ever made but I voted it at 10 stars all the same. Mainly because of my feelings at the end. I and all the people around me were simply touched. This is something you don't often feel . We are all getting a bit cynical and fed up with over sentimentality, lazy manipulation or preaching in modern films. The story of the film centres around Jane a young woman in the last stages of MND and the friendship that grows between her and Richard, a man on the verge of a breakdown. This could have so easily been a dull and worthy piece but it is so humorous, humane and lacking in sentimentality that it wins you over completely and against the odds is a feel good movie. <br /><br />The acting from Branagh and Bonham-Carter is superb especially the latter who is always believable and strong in her role. The chemistry between the two also lifts the movie. <br /><br />The title comes from Richards masterpiece, a plane made of junk and his old paintings. Flying here is a symbol for both Richards and Janes living life to the full so that one can carry on and the other can face the end. <br /><br />A beautiful and funny movie that I would recommend to anyone. don't let the subject matter put you off.

This movie was one of the rolling on the floor laughing movies I have ever seen. Danny De Vito plays Owen perfectly. Momma is excellently portrayed, and was one of the highlights of the movie.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie it starts of differently then what you would expect. Larry is trying to write a book and is having some troubles. Larry teaches a writing class and Owen tagged after Larry trying to get him to read his story. Owen eventually asks Larry to kill his mother, and in return Owen would kill Larry's ex-wife. The whole movie was really hilarious.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of the movie is at the end when Owen writes "Throw Momma from the Train". Larry gets furious because he just wrote a book of similar plot. It turns out that Owen wrote a children's pop-up book.<br /><br />I would really recommend this movie. I gave it a 10.

This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending!. All the characters are pretty cool, and the story while unoriginal is very good, plus Eric Jungmann(Adam) and Justin Urich(Harley) had fantastic chemistry together. One of the funniest moments in the film for me is when Adam is trapped in the bathroom, and Harley wakes up to find that monster truck sitting there, and decides to take a p*ss in the truck, and Aimee Brooks is just plain sexy!, plus this is one of the best low budget Horror films I have seen in a long time. It's very gory, but in a comical way, and I thought it was very well written as well, plus Michael Bailey Smith is fantastic as the Monster Man and had some wicked makeup!. It's similar to films like Joy Ride, Duel, Jeepers Creepers, etc, etc and it has some suspenseful moments here and there, plus The gore effects are really well done for the most part. This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Michael Davis does a very good! job here, with great camera work, good angles,good use of colors, and using a great setting, plus he kept the film funny and at a very fast pace.<br /><br />There is a lot of gore!. We get extremely bloody nose bleeds,gory impaling's, bloody stabbings,guy is cut in half by a monster truck, human remains in a cooked stew, guts all over the place,guys guts fall out,pencil in the eyes,bloody slit throat,bunch of people walking around without limbs,gory dead squirrel,heads are squished,severed limbs,bloody and mangled corpses,decent amount of bloodshed,one very gory scene at the very end and more!.<br /><br />The Acting is very good for a low budget film. Eric Jungmann is fantastic here as Adam, he was a nerd but a very likable one, he had fantastic chemistry with Justin Urich, had some cool lines,and I just loved his character, he also seemed to be enjoying himself,and he was especially good at the end!. Justin Urich is excellent as the ass of a Best Friend, however I just couldn't help but love him as he was very funny, and often stole a lot of the scenes, I really dug him!. Aimee Brooks is gorgeous, and did great with what she had to do, she had good chemistry with Jungmann and like Jungmann was especially good at the end, as I loved her mysterious character. Michael Bailey Smith is wonderful as The Monster Man he was very creepy looking, had some awesome makeup, and is now one of my favorite slashers!. Rest of the cast do fine.<br /><br />Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5

The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms. <br /><br />Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend. <br /><br />The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize. <br /><br />Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?<br /><br />It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself. <br /><br />Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten.

I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy.

This is not the stuff of soap-operas but the sort of conundrums that real people face in real life. A testament to the ensemble and director for the powerful story-telling of fallible characters trying to cope but not quite succeeding.

The Unborn tells the tale of a married couple named Virginia (Brooke Adames) & Bradley Marshall (Jeff Hayenga) who have tried for the last five years to conceive, Virginia has had two miscarriages since then & is desperate to have a child. They visit Dr. Richard Meyerling (James Karen) for help after he is recommended by some of their friends, Dr. Meyerling says he will be able to help them have a child. Dr. Meyerling operates on Virginia & it is soon confirmed that the surgery has been a success & Virginia is pregnant. At first everything seems perfect & the Marshall's couldn't be happier, but their picture perfect lives don't last for long as Virginia's pregnancy develops problems, she becomes moody & acts totally out of character & she receives a worrying phone call from Beth (Jane Cameron), another woman who has undergone Dr. Meyerling's procedure, who claims that Meyerling is in fact using his patients for his own sinister ends & is in fact a disgraced genetic researcher. Virginia begins to question just what is growing inside of her...<br /><br />Produced & directed by Rodman Flender I actually thought The Unborn was a decent horror/thriller (it's DEFINITELY NOT a sci-fi film as the IMDb would have you believe) that pleasantly surprised me. The script by Henry Dominic tries to be different & it must take some credit for that at least. The Unborn goes for psychological horror rather than cheap scares & bad special effects, it's got quite a clever story that works & plays on basic human fears. It moves along at a fair pace although it's not exactly an action packed film by any means. The climax was good & seemed a fitting way to round things off & the warnings about messing around with genetics seem even more relevant today than it must have been back then, maybe Flender knew something the rest of us didn't. On the down side it lacks some exploitation elements & is at heart a dialogue driven film mostly focusing on one person so it can get a bit dull at times. Also, I have to mention it, what on Erath was that grinning black skateboarding dwarf all about eh?!<br /><br />Director Flender does an OK job, The Unborn is far from the most stylish or visually interesting film ever made but it's good enough. The atmosphere is good & there's a fair bit of tension as what Virginia has inside of her & Dr. Meyerling's sinister plans aren't fully revealed until the last possible moment. Disappointingly the blood & gore is almost non existent which in a way lets the film down because in retrospect nothing really memorable happens, The Unborn relies on good storytelling which is fine but in a week I doubt I'll remember too much about it.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK, I'd imagine that The Unborn had a pretty low budget but it's well made even if it's a little bland & forgettable. The baby creature is actually a decent special effect & has fairly realistic facial movement. The acting is good & this was one of the first acting jobs credited to Friends (1994 - 2004) star Lisa Kudrow, I have to be honest I don't like Friends & I don't even know who she was in this so I can't tell you how she did.<br /><br />The Unborn is a good horror/thriller that deserves to be more widely known & seen, it's far better than a lot of low budget crap that litter video shop shelves. If your a horror fan & are looking for something a bit different, something slightly more intelligent & thought provoking than usual then I think you could do a lot worse than The Unborn. Followed by a dumbed down sequel The Unborn II (1994) which I watched straight after this, check my review out if you want..

When I first saw this movie, it was titled TERROR ON A TRAIN and was the back half of a double feature. Glenn Ford, an armament expert is called on to defuse a hidden bomb on a train loaded with high explosives. The tension is slow and steady; and this black & white film runs only about an hour and twelve minutes. All these years later on TV; the tension and drama has lost most of its impact. This is still a good movie as far as early 50s standards go.<br /><br />Along with Ford are Anne Vernon and Maurice Denham. The villain/saboteur is played by Victor Maddern.

an very good storyline, good thrill to it ... but the 10 last seconds destroyed the whole movie... what happened? extremely well made and an good story destroyed in the last seconds... sorry to say but a 1 in vote... thats what it it deserve, i would think that Chris Shadley could come up with a better end... but maybe next time : ) all this meaningless blood gore for nothing? the end would lift the story to close to a 10, but it didn't.... the end destroyed the whole story, i think most people aren't lame and when they goes a movie thy want a good end, even if it is intricate ... but the only lame here is the end... sorry

Unfortunately this original mix of action and laughs is kept from cinema fans as it sits rotting in the Columbia vaults for all eternity. A shame since this may be Jack Starrett's strongest film and features a witty script by a young Terrence Malick and fully realized performances by its two leads Stacey Keach and Frederic Forrest who turn to a life of crime so they can get the money to open a seafood restaurant. Many standout scenes include interrogation by bathtub and electric razor, and an intense shootout in an abandoned building as it's being torn down by a wrecking ball!

This movie is by far one of the worst B-movies I have ever seen. There are no plot twists at all. Though the acting is decent, the storyline is terrible. There are also many mistakes in the movie, and it was bothersome to watch. For any of you who like horror movies, slasher movies, or even B-movies, I don't recommend this to anyone at all. Most of the movie is focused on pointless killing, in ways that aren't even worth discussing. This movie could very well be compared to a crappy remake of Jeepers Creepers, which, too, wasn't that great of a movie. For anyone who wishes to spend a day at home, watching poorly made movies, this one takes the cake.

I have seen this movie plenty of times and I gotta tell ya, I've enjoyed it every single time. This is Belushi's pinnacle movie in my opinion. Belushi and Lovitz are so likable and identifiable with the common man that you can't help but get involved once you start watching. The movie has a wonderful cast of stars, some already were big, and others were just getting started. It's billed as a feel good movie, and that's exactly what it is. This movie teaches you that life isn't always so bad after all. Sometimes you've just gotta look at stuff in a different perspective to fully appreciate what you already have. When you're done watching, you'll appreciate the things you have a lot more and you'll also be smiling. You can't ask for much more from a movie in my opinion, not to mention it's a hilarious movie and you'll never lose interest. Very Very underrated movie here folks.<br /><br />Rating from me: 10 I am out!!!

Based on what little i have seen of this show I don't think I will ever watch it again. Its not even remotely believable and frankly the Derek character just makes me angry.<br /><br />Sorry but seeing such a spoiled brat get his way time and again? Why would i want to watch that?!? No thanks, there are plenty of other shows that involve devious characters (Phil of the Future's Pim for example) where the evil one doesn't win or if they do not in the way they though.<br /><br />Not to mention that I think this is a terrible picture to paint about living with step-siblings. Yes life isn't rosy but one could attempt to portray a character that wasn't outright evil and wins.<br /><br />My suggestion is that you watch this only if you like seeing the villain win.

This review may contain some SPOILERS.<br /><br />Just when you thought they didn't make them so extremely bad anymore, along comes Rae Dawn Chong as a space vixen and Willie Nelson as a Native American witchdoctor! It's even worse when you factor in that these two are the BETTER aspects of `Starlight,' a film that should only be viewed for laughs.<br /><br />Chong is an alien sent to Earth to seek out the only remaining half-breed, part man and part alien. Apparently, the Earth is in dire straits. Something is wrong with the genetics of mankind, and in a few decades the world will be turned into a polluted wasteland. Only by duplicating the DNA of the half-breed can the kindly alien race save the planet. Don't ask me how that is, since the movie gives the impression that the world will be destroyed by pollution, which is caused by humans. You would think Earth could only be saved by getting rid of the polluting creatures, not saving them! Anyway, the half-breed turns out to be Billy Wirth, a man living in a small Southwestern town and is part Native American from his mother's line, despite the fact that his mother is a red-headed Caucasian and his grandfather is Willie Nelson. Wasn't this the sort of malarkey that made the bombastic Carmen Electra bomb `The Chosen One' such a howler? Chong arrives in her ship just as Wirth nearly drowns after driving his motorcycle into a lake in a fit of recklessness being the result of just breaking up with his girlfriend. Before you can say utter the word `hogwash,' Chong is revealing her secret to Wirth, who isn't surprised for a moment, and spreading the word to Wirth's family. Chong also makes pals with Wirth's mother, who seems to have lost a few of her marbles over the years. Well, this is because Wirth's father was an alien that abandoned her. Of course, he is the standard rogue alien that has conveniently picked this moment to come to Earth for Wirth so he can use Wirth's DNA to make the people of Earth his slaves. (Huh?) His laughable attempts to use his telepathic powers and capture Wirth suck up most of the screen time and are the worst scenes in the movie. Not only are they boring, but they are the scenes where you will be spotting the flubs the most.<br /><br />The ideas might be nice on paper, but they are handled here with the utmost of stupidity, particularly in the aforementioned scenes with the rogue alien. But the effects are the bane of the movie. The opening scene involves Chong on her spaceship, communicating with her superior, someone who we do not see but that Chong communicates with through a vat that emits pink light. They use no spoken words, but telepathy, so we are treated to subtitles. Trouble is, both Chong and her superior's subtitles both look alike, and the director gives you no indication as to which of the two are actually `speaking' at any given moment, which makes the whole conversation nothing but gibberish. The spaceship is the worst effect to come out of Hollywood this side of an Ed Wood film. Now, I am usually lenient on effects when dealing with a low budgeted film such as this, but these effects really got to me. The most offensive was the most simple one: a fake night sky. The stars in the sky are so phony they almost sound off a dial tone. Most notably are the moments where Chong tells someone she comes from Pleiades, and we get a shot of the seven stars. Thing is, the seven stars take up about half the night sky in the movie, but any stargazer knows that Pleiades is a star cluster between the constellations Perseus and Taurus, and the cluster doesn't take up much room in the sky at all. These effects just get so lousy that your jaw will hang lower and lower with every passing moment. Be careful, for it will go right through the floor during the finale when the effects have Willie Nelson turn into a human spotlight and . . . Oh, it has to be seen to be believed!<br /><br />Starlight, star bright; Last star I see tonight; I wish I might, I wish I may; not have to watch any more of this trash today.<br /><br />Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.

This film is really unbelievable. I've seen so much cheap trash-movies, especially a lot 'Full Moon'-Pictures, but 'Dollman' is really hard. So much comes together: the laughable story, the actors always at the edge of parody and the special effects! How long I could talk about them! It is a really bad movie, but also one of the funniest ones. If you're a fan of bad movies to laugh about, you have to see it. And don't miss 'Dollman vs. Demonic Toys'. It really funnier and worse.

While in a plane, flicking through the large choice of movies, I came across Live! almost accidentally. oh boy! what a choice.<br /><br />I remembered vaguely seeing the trailer over a year ago and completely forgot about it expecting no more than another cheesy nonsense movie about a stupid reality show. Now I can easily say this has been a hell of a ride. I don't remember last time I have been so excited, terrified. Not sure if it was the high altitude playing with my senses, but the suspense grow gradually through the movie until reaching a climax where you can't turn away from the screen, literally sitting on the edge of your seat and biting the remaining nails you've got.<br /><br />You will first go through a personal moral assessment of where you stand about the righteousness of the show. You will drift from thinking "how come the human being can be so vicious" to "why not after all?".Ask yourself would you do it. Then learn about the contestants, their motives and start guessing. You will then watch contestant pulling the trigger one by one and get excited even though you know the first candidate is safe.<br /><br />Good acting, good directing, with a movie experience that reminds you those old movies where you knew what would happen in the next scene but still were craving for more.<br /><br />*Spoilers* couple of things i would have changed:<br /><br />- the casting of the contestants. i have really been moved by the farmer and we should have had a bit more like him. The idea of a rich writer who wants to be famous is a bit stupid, it felt like you didn't care about some of the contestants. Although this might have been done on purpose, i think the audience should have been able to associate with the majority of the contestants. - game rules, a big glitch :<br /><br />what happens if the 5th contestants doesn't die when he pulls the trigger. do you seriously think the last standing guy will pull the trigger and execute himself!!! they should have given a chance to all contestants to live, ie: if 5th is a blank too, then no one dies.<br /><br />interestingly I haven't been bothered too much by this bad points cause i really had a good time. just wish i had some popcorn with me!

Sean Bean returns as Napoleonic hero Richard Sharpe in Sharpe's Honour, the fifth movie in the series and as always Patrick Harper and the rest of Sharpes chosen men are all along for the ride, but this time Major Sharpe is in serious trouble.<br /><br />Under the influence of Sharpe's sworn enemy Major Ducos, a mysterious lady by the name of La Marquesa has accused Sharpe of rape. Her husband arrives at Sharpe's camp to challenge his wife's attacker to a dual.<br /><br />The dual is discovered and stopped by the authorities, and as a result Sharpe becomes the prime suspect when his opponent is murdered in the middle of the night.<br /><br />As no-one in the British Army other than Wellington and Major Nairn consider Sharpe anything but a rough commoner with little or no honour, he his given a shambolic trial and is sentenced to death by hanging, and Harper and the chosen men have no choice but to look on as their beloved commander walks slowly to the gallows.<br /><br />However, convinced of his innocence Wellington and Nairn hang another convicted prisoner in Sharpe's stead and release him and his chosen men to find the real killer and La Marquesa herself, to not only prove his innocence but to find out her reasons for framing him in the first place.<br /><br />Daragh O'Malley, Micheal Byrne and Hugh Fraser co-star with brilliant performances by Alice Krige as La Marquesa and Féodor Atkine as the villainous Major Ducos, in what is another exciting, swashbuckling instalment through Sharpe's eventful journey through the Napoleonic Wars.

I agree that Capital City should be on DVD. I watched this show only by accident in 1994 and fell in love with Rolf Saxon as Hudson Talbot. It was nice to see Americans who work abroad in London in the financial industry for a change. I loved Rolf in this role and loved every other role that he has been in. I can't believe the show only lasted 13 episodes. I liked William Armstrong as Hudson's flamboyant charming friend in the series. When they aired this show in the New York City area, it was always late at night or at off times. The show is less than an hour long. I felt this show should have gone on longer but the casting changes in the second season really made the show a little less interesting. I didn't care for Sylvia but missed the actress, Julia Phillips-Lane in the previous season. I felt this show took chances and often it worked. It showed Americans who loved and chose to live in London. The American characters were not arrogant or tried to outdo their British counterparts. I also liked the fact that they had tried to internationalize the cast rather than make them all British. I liked watching Julia Ormond in an early role. I felt this show should have lasted longer. I felt at times that the previews lasted as long as the show in less than an hour. They could have transferred the cast to New York City and it would have been a hit in America.

My Take: Typically routine and lazy straight to video attempt from Disney. <br /><br />Disney must have fallen in love with the family movie tradition that is the family dog. Many movies have devoted themselves with stories that solely center themselves with man's best friend. Disney themselves have made a handful. They also made a handful of those that are literally dogs. Add this one to that bunch.<br /><br />I haven't seen the original for a very long time, so probably I'm not the right person to judge if this straight-to-video sequel fares any better. Anyone above the age of seven aren't the right people to see it either. Perhaps only the youngest of the young will want to see LADY AND THE TRAMP II: SCAMP'S ADVENTURE, and even they would grow up and say it wasn't the best kind of family entertainment they have ever seen. I guess to be fair, I can say is that it warrants a rental, but that ain't much to say.<br /><br />This sequel pretty much picks up the parts left behind after the original oft-called classic. Lady and Tramp now have a litter of cute Crocker Spaniel pups... and one mischievous mongrel named Scamp who is a chip off the old block. Instead of the confines of home, Scamp wishes to run off with the other junkyard dogs of town, unknown of his dad's own past as one of those mongrels of the streets. To capture the charms of the original, this one throws in the same poor dog/rich dog love story, in vice-versa. Scamp falls for a one of the junkyard dogs named Angel (and who wouldn't with a name like that and a voice that sounds like Alyssa Milano?). Que replay of the famous spaghetti scene! Other than the "cute" factor, there is nothing in store for any audience in this lazy straight-to-video effort. Stick with the original.<br /><br />Rating: ** out of 5.

As a big fan of Brian Yuzna and the majority of the movies he's been involved in, I guessed I'd enjoy Progeny. I didn't, although in ways it has it's moments. However, if you're expecting something of the calibre of Society or Beyond ReAnimator, you could be in for a shock. In a way this is similar to Society, being a tale of a seemingly ordinary world with a horrific supernatural underbelly...but that's where it ends.<br /><br />I'm not covering for Yuzna when I say that the fault doesn't really lie with him, as bad direction is bad direction, but the direction is sound. What trips the movie up is both script and acting. Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, Dagon) has written an intelligent script, but one that doesn't really work with Yuzna's style of direction, leaving him paused on actors delivering lengthy dialogue when really he wants to throw that camera around and get down with his bad self. This matter makes the movie awkward enough as it is, but there's worse.<br /><br />If the movie had been made with great actors, the movie would have probably held it's own. Unfortunately this is very far from the case. The acting is wooden, shockingly so even for a low-budget B feature. The inexplicably successful and renowned Arnold Vosloo wrecks every damn line with near pinpoint precision, handing in one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while. The man manages to turn every line of well considered dialogue into the kind of ham-line you'll be throwing drunkenly at mates next time you're in the pub. 'Hey Bob! GOOD GOD, AM I GOING MAD! WHAT'S...COME OVER ME! NOOOO!' In fact I may try that one myself next weekend. The last minute addition of genre veteran (and personal favourite) Brad Dourif, instead of enriching the film like it should, almost seems to hand Dourif the movie in a last ditch effort to stop Vosloo from hamming, but quite frankly Dourif looks deeply uncomfortable (possibly waiting for the next assault of bad acting) next to Vosloo, and even an eccentric turn from him fails to resuscitate the film.<br /><br />If the acting was better, this movie would have been okay. Hell, it might have been pretty enjoyable, but the lack of character makes the movie a soulless affair, and makes the horror element seem tacked on and tasteless instead of an organic part of the film. I found the alien torture/rape scenes a little difficult to stomach already, but the fact that the characters were so lacking made them seem gratuitous as well as unpleasant, leaving a nasty taste in the mouth.<br /><br />So, if you really like Sci-fi and don't have a problem with bad acting, pedestrian pacing and a really garish, nasty rape scene, Progeny will probably be your cup of tea. But since I do, I'm probably never going to watch it again. Once was enough. On the plus side, this is the only Sci-Fi movie Yuzna ever bothered to make, so he obviously wasn't really that pleased with it himself.

From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.

The reason the DVD releases of this film are in black and white is because nobody can get their hands on a color print of this public domain film, a modest sea story at best.<br /><br />Distributed for television thru Allied Artists, DVD's (or VHS) on the market at this time for this title are all coming from the same 16MM television print. Films distributed for television prior to 1963 were often distributed in b/w prints, because the bulk of viewers did not have color sets anyway. Striking b/w prints for television was also cheaper, as it often involved quite a few prints to cover all stations running a film on a syndicated basis.

I would not like to comment on how good the movie was or what were the flaws as I am not a professional film critic and I do not have enough knowledge of making movies. What i do know is that making this kind of a movie in your very first shot is a big achievement and I would like to congratulate the Director for that. However, in some reviews, that i have read, critics have complained that Hiralal's relationship with his brothers was not highlighted, and his siblings were completely erased from the story. Now i would really like to raise a point here that as the name of the movie suggests, it is not a movie about Hiralal's brothers, it is a movie on the relationship of Mahatma Gandhi and his son Hiralal Gandhi, nothing more nothing less. If we start complaining about some characters being kept out of action in the movie, it would be a bit unfair because these characters don't fit in the picture, no matter how relevant they were in real life. So i think it would be better if we stick to the main idea and stop satisfy a critic in ourselves.<br /><br />Enjoy!!!!

it's a beautiful film.the scenes are well pictured.Anne Revere 's dialogs are really well written and inspiring,the philosophy and thoughts that this film gives and the things it teaches makes it great and wonderful.<br /><br />Mickey Rooney is great in the movie and his role goes through lot of emotional turmoil as the film progresses.<br /><br />Elizabeth Taylor looks very pretty,her scenes in the film are inherently poetic,the way camera follows her and the way the music make you feel make every scene of her ethereally beautiful.<br /><br />this movie has great spirit and a beloved cherished classic.<br /><br />Angela Lansbury is quite amusing in her role though unrecognizable if you have seen her in role of 'm' in 'the Manchurian Candidate'.<br /><br />Donald Crisp has done his father's role full justice and the script provides him with ample stuff to justify his role.<br /><br />its a very nice film and a must watch for family and children an evergreen Christmas favorite.

I saw this back in 99 and I remember loving it. Still to this day I can remember parts of the movie in my head, like the slanted pitch. Unfortunately from 99 - now I could never remember the name of this until I was looking through the filmography of a friend of my uncles and came across this (he played Clive Kennard). Straight away after reading the description I knew what it was. After catching up I was shocked to find out that not only did it not make a release on video or DVD but still has yet to be repeated. This is a massive shame, I am begging you ITV at least repeat this superb TV Movie. Nick Hancock showed in this movie he could do more than just host a show with his character Mike Tonker. This is a movie that most football fans would love and even those who aren't too keen on the sport would be able to enjoy the comedic value of this. Yes this is a brief review but there is not much to say apart from this is an underrated movie, deserves to be repeated or released on video/DVD so ITV, myself and other fans of this movie beg you. PLEASE CONSIDER ONE OF THOSE!

I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.

This stupid, anti-environment wannabe "Jaws" is sad, pathetic, boring, poorly dubbed, and stupid. There is nothing redeeming about it.<br /><br />Plot follows some shark/octopus creature-thingy that appears off the coast of Florida and kills some people (including a boring, stupid couple with a whiny wife and a silent husband who stabs himself with a fork for some reason). His ascent to the surface is always represented by a vague sideshot of something bumpy over and over. It makes no sense, it's horribly boring, and it's conspiracy plot sucks.<br /><br />There are moments of camp that cannot be ignored: the same shot of the boat of the couple of the opening sequence THREE TIMES; the doctor slamming a dying patient's chest twenty times with a difibulator without stopping, even though he's clearly dead; the porno-esque soundtrack; the shot of the couple making love on the beach, with three different thems ("That us is getting ahead of us!") doing this; the ancient computer that sounds like Kermit the Frog; a beer-guzzling scientist screaming "I know!" a la Dr. Smith; the list goes on and on.<br /><br />Oh, and everyone drinks at least thirty bears in the course of the movie (much noticed by Mike and the 'Bots) . . .<br /><br />The MST3K version is their best episode, but it's certainly better than the movie itself. "This is how I like to go fishing, guys . . . with a flashlight and a flamethrower . . ." - Crow<br /><br />One star for "Devil Fish"; seven for the MST3K version<br /><br />

This film comes as the ultimate disappointment in Tsai Ming-Liang for me. It oozes laziness from its every frame. So I'm not going to analyse it thoroughly either. But some observations:<br /><br />1. If the premise is drought, why we get to see city landscapes with blooming green trees? I wonder if that was supposed to mean something in the metaphorical context of the film (in which thirst notifies the craving for intimacy, and watermelon the trivial substitute, sex). Or it is only a matter of lousy film-making, not giving a damn about being coherent.<br /><br />2. We don't get to know what had happened to the porn actress, why she is unconscious or, presumably, dead. It seems a question of no importance as long as the message of supreme alienation is successfully (=bombastically) delivered, but in retrospect, her inert body proves to be a cheap dramaturgical gimmick, a pretext – just as gratuitous and exploitative as the activity it is employed in.<br /><br />3. Nothing is expressed in this movie that Antonioni hadn't expressed better 40 years ago – and without needlessly humiliating his actors.<br /><br />4. The musical numbers (recycled from 'The Hole') felt like a secondary-schooler's idea of artistic counterpointing, executed on that very secondary-school level of skill. If that was the point, the point sucked.

Pakeezah has a very interesting history (which is well documented in the 'Trivia' section) about how it came to be. It seems as if destiny conspired to test Kamal Amrohi (the director) while at the same time secretly desiring to see him complete his masterpiece.<br /><br />Pakeezah rides on metaphors, poetry and visual elocution. As a result the intensity with which emotions come out achieve a dimension which may not be very real but are very effective and leave an impact on the viewer.<br /><br />Meena Kumari lives the tragedy of Nargis and Sahib Jaan like her own. The other stars of the film, besides her, are Ghulam Mohammed (the music director), Lata Mangeshkar, Naushad (background score) and Joseph Wirsching (the d.o.p). Their music and cinematography leaves you spell bound.<br /><br />Pakeezah is a classic in world cinema. It reveals new layers to you every time you watch it again. Kamal Amrohi is one of the rare poets of cinema and he left us all a gift.

I first saw "Breaking Glass" when it was released in England in 1980..I loved it then and having just caught it in August 2005 on a Canadian station it still is great. The only thing I regret is I can't find the sound track or the DVD in the stores??...anyone care to shed some light or must I order it from some over priced internet company. But getting back to the film the music stands up to the test of time, Hazel/Kate had something to say about 80's Britain..actually it was the same decade I moved to Canada for some of the same reasons one being "Thatcher" and what she was doing to the country at the time. Please if you get the chance watch this movie you won't be sorry!

The Forest isn't just your everyday standard slasher/backwoods cannibal fare, it also has an interesting mix of supernatural elements as well. The story is about two couples that hike into the forest on a camping trip. A cave dwelling, cannibalistic woodsmen and the ghosts of his dead wife and two children soon terrorize them. There is something you don't see every slasher. Director Don Jones gets an "A" for effort although the film itself falls flat on just about every level, the acting is just simply average except for Jeanette Kelly who plays the dead wife of the woodsman (Michael Brody aka Gary Kent).<br /><br />The film opens with some beautiful shots of a couple hiking through a valley and into a forest. They realize too late that someone is stalking them. They are both dispatched in typical slasher fare. Our killer uses a trusty hunting knife throughout the entire film, except during a flashback when he implements a handsaw, pitchfork and rusty saw blade to dispatch his cheating wife's lover.<br /><br />The Forest has a good story line but the movie just doesn't work along with it I found it pretty boring with simply crappy acting. 4/10