I saw this film at the 2002 Toronto International Film Festival.

This is the first Indian film I've seen in the Tamil language, and while it does share some similarities with other Indian films (wonderful music and choreography, sweeping storyline), the director attempts more than just to entertain. The film tells the story of Amudha, a precocious nine-year old whose parents reveal to her that she was adopted, thus beginning an odyssey that takes them all from India to war-torn Sri Lanka. Gorgeous visuals mix with horrifying scenes of violence expressly to make a point, though it is a simplistic one. Amudha is played by P.S. Keerthana, and she is one of the few child actors I've seen who can be precocious and yet not annoying. Her charm and beauty held the film together.


This has to be one of the best, if not the best film i have seen for a very, very long time. Had enough action to satisfy an fan, and yet the plot was very good. I really enjoyed the film,and had me hooked from start to finish.

Added blood and gore in there, but brought the realistic nature of what happens to the front of the film, and even had a tear jerker ending for many people i should think.

It is a must watch for anyone. Seen many reviews, slating the film, but to be fair, most the films that get bad reviews, turn out to be some of the best. this proves it once again.

Rent this film, buy this film, just go out and watch this film. You will not be disappointed.


The original Airport (1970) was a classic of its kind, and the first two B-movie follow-ups (Airport 1975; Airport '77) were watchable fun at best, amusing camp at worst; but this crass and inept final entry lacks any entertainment value and displays a shocking contempt for its audience. It's unendurable and not even good for laughs.

All of the three 'Airport' sequels were theatrical releases made by Universal's television wing but this one is beneath even the modest standards of a TV movie of its day, with cheapjack production, grotesque casting, visual ugliness and tasteless, unfunny 'comedy'. The project was clearly doomed by the 'creative' efforts of Universal executive Jennings Lang who personally produced and is given a 'story' credit.

Everyone starts somewhere, and writer Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) might have provided an element of self-burlesque, as had the previous films (especially the notorious Airport 1975), but there is nothing worth spoofing in Roth's turgid, incoherent script and even the comedy Airplane! left this crud untouched.

What makes The Concorde: Airport '79 particularly offensive is its insulting misuse of professionals. The worst victim is the supremely gifted Cicily Tyson (Sounder; The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman), pitilessly reduced to a vomitous subplot involving her escorting a frozen heart transplant on the unfortunate flight.

A special kick to the groin is reserved for the wonderful George Kennedy, who is the true lead despite being buried in the cast list. The official mascot of the 'Airport' series and the only actor to appear in all four movies, Kennedy had more than earned the starring role and his turn in the Captain's seat would have been the only possible reason for this entry other than the squeezing of one last buck. Kennedy provides the only warmth and real humor in this mechanical muckup, briefly putting aside the bravura machismo and revealing a genuinely sweet and tender side to himself, and his lovable and heroic character of 'Joe Patroni'. Unfortunately we are never allowed to forget how fat and old and over-the-hill Kennedy is, and overage pretty-boy Alain Delon relentlessly calls him 'Porky Pig' as part of a buddy-bonding that falls completely flat. Even Kennedy's Parisian romance, the only humane part of this plane-wreck, turns out to be merely a set-up for a hateful joke at Patroni's, Kennedy's, and the viewer's expense.


Not sure I've ever seen a black comedy from Denamark before but this is quite good actually. The humor is suitably low-key and deadpan to go with some of the gruesome activity. Svend and Bjarne are fed up with working for their boss, because he's always putting them down (in fact he mentions that they weren't bright enough to unzip before peeing at one point). They do what they have to to start their own butcher shop and when a workman is accidentally locked in the cooler overnight while fixing a light, they hit upon something that makes their butcher shop far more popular than their old boss's. In fact, he's the one they sold their first 'filets' to, and it's partly his fault, since he served them at a Rotary dinner at his house and the guests raved about it and showed up at Svend and Bjarnes the next day. Bjarne is somewhat horrified what Svend has done but it doesn't stop there. Svend has risen above his sad little existence to be someone of some popularity which is new for him and he doesn't want to let go of that, so the freezer continues to fill up with all manner of acquaintances (and, at one point, 'a small Swede from the park'). Suspiccions arise, though, because ex-boss Holger thinks something is wrong. Bjarne is also haunted by his twin brother Eigil, who lived in a sanitarium for years in a coma and whom Bjarne wanted the plug pulled on so he could get inheritance money to help open the shop. When Eigil was taken off the respirator he was revived, much to Bjarne's horror. And Bjarne has a love interest too in Astrid, who works at the cemetery. Neither Svend nor Bjarne are well adjusted individuals and so things start to spiral out of control. The deadpan humor really makes this, and while this isn't exactly laugh out loud material it certainly is amusing. It is somewhat creepy though considering the cuts of meat and body parts casually lying around, especially since these two take it all so matter-of-fact. If you're a fan of black comedies this is recommended, I liked it quite well myself. 8 out of 10.


AristoCats is such a terrific Disney classic that I just loved so much as a kid. Still to this day I can't resist watching it, it's just such a wonderful and charming film with great animation and lovely songs. I really miss the animation films like AristoCats, they had perfect voices not to mention the hand drawn animation that makes it perfect for the family. AristoCats is also very witty and clever, the story was just so wonderful. This film is just beyond irresistible, I think the most memorable moment for me was the cats playing the piano learning the appecio's, lol, it was just so cute with the piano playing and painting.

Douchess and her kittens are very pampered in their huge mansion, mainly because their lady is very rich and treats them like they were her children. But when the lady feels it's time to make her will, she leaves everything to the cats and not to her butler. The butler gets angry and takes the kittens on the road and abondons them in the middle of no where. Douchess and the kittens wake up and with the help of a smooth street cat by the name of Thomas O'Malley, they head back home to their lady, but learn the coolness of being a skat cat.

The AristoCats is just a perfect Disney movie that I feel is a bit over looked. I would always highly recommend this movie for kids or families, it could be enjoyed by anyone. The songs and story is just memorable. I will always join in for the movies best song 'Everybody wants to be a cat', such a great tune. I also love those dogs that guarded the farm where the cats were abandoned, they were just so cute. This is a terrific film, please watch it, you won't be disappointed.

9/10


I didn't know what to expect from 'Ned Kelly', but absolutely loved it. It was dark, dramatic and gripping. It also felt very authentic, I felt that I had been transported back to the 1800's. I've never been much of a Heath Ledger fan, having only seen him in teen type movies, however he is quite compelling in this role. Ledger plays Ned Kelly with dignity and intensity, showing us how an highly spirited boy became Australia's most notorious killer. Naomi Watts is great in a supporting role as Kelly's society lover. Highly recommended - and that's from an Aussie!


I hardly know where to begin.

Huge continuity issues, bad acting, etc. For example, Sam is supposed to be far from any people yet you can see the ski slopes cut into the mountain next to his head.

But the most fundamental problem is that the essence of the book, Sam's adventurousness paving the way to improve the lot of his entire family, is not even touched upon. Instead, in the movie, he gets ticked off at his family and leaves his wealthy parents to be by himself and, when he gets tired of it, he goes home. Where is his development? Where is the arc?

If you have never read the book and can get through the hokey 60isms (double/triple/quadruple visions of the falcon) and terrible production quality (crackling, ahem, fire, winter winds stopping their howling for the dialog and then restarting, etc.) I guess it *might* be OK for an 8 year old.

But compared to the sophistication of the book it is a terrible disappointment.

Read the book instead.


This is the only Pauly Shore movie you should ever see. O.K., it's the only one I've ever seen, and I think I've made good choices. I normally find Shore's shtick kind of tired, but he is very funny in this movie. Actually, the script is pretty funny, and Shore doesn't overwhelm the other actors with his ... what do you call it? Tomfoolery? Anyway, this is a funny, if ultimately forgettable film. --Frink-3


i recently went to a free screening of soap girl where the filmmakers were present. before the movie they strutted around, laughing, taking pictures. i was excited to see them dressed up in real life, and couldn't wait to see the movie on the big screen.

during the movie, the audience errupted with laughter. it was clear to me then that they weren't laughing with the picture, but at the picture. this is purely a grade B movie with no logic behind it. throw in some nudity, some blood and whala! you have a movie!

after the movie i approached a bunch of the filmmakers and asked them why they wanted to make this movie. they all acted so serious, like they were serious filmmakers. they each told me something different: to make a controversial movie, a funny movie, an uplifting movie, a socially responsible movie. everybody mentioned something different. it was clear to me that none of the filmmakers knew what kind of movie they were making, and they were now trying to recoup their money by publicizing this movie any way they could to get people to see it.

Let me warn you: don't buy into the hype! unless you seriously have nothing else to do, it might be worth a film student's time to study how a film should not be made. otherwise you are better off saving two hours of your life.


Red Skelton (in his first starring role) plays Wally Benton who plays 'The Fox' on a radio show. He writes the murder mysteries and as 'The Fox' solves them. Joseph Jones (Conrad Veidt) is trying to figure out how to perform the perfect murder on someone. He kidnaps Benton, his girlfriend (Ann Rutherford) and another girlfriend (Virginia Grey). He tells Benton to write out the perfect murder...or his girlfriends get it...

Very funny and enjoyable movie. Fast-moving (it's only 77 minutes), a good script and perfect casting really puts this across. Skelton is very good in his first starring role--very funny, fast, handsome and intelligent. Veidt is excellent as the evil Jones. Rutherford and Grey are lots of fun as Skelton's girlfriends. All three of them play off each other perfectly--their verbal sparring is the highlight of this pic. Also fun to see Eve Arden in a small role.

Well worth your time.


Soulless milking of cash cow franchise. Generic superhero flick. CGI showcase. Gavin Hood's 'A Series of Improbable Events.' Combinatoric iteration of mutant fight scenes strung together by inane exposition justifying formation/dissolution of arbitrary alliances. I'm not expecting Shakespeare here but the cliché per minute meter was off the charts: Primal scream while looking skyward and kneeling over murdered girlfriend. Renegade military commander. Predictable double crosses. Revenge sought for slain lover. Erased memories. Evil character discovering morality at last minute. Misguided failures to execute nemeses after defeating them in melee. Lover not really dead. Lover actually acting as spy for hero's arch-nemesis. Girlfriend/spy actually falls for protagonist. Good people work for antagonist in order to save kidnapped family members. Evil mastermind fails to honor promises to reluctant employees. Kindly old couple care for weary hero and get murdered for their troubles. Certain deaths averted as third parties arrive on scene before coup de grace. Hero reluctantly joining secret government agency. Abandonment of elite squad in protest over slaughter of innocents. Scientists unable to control indestructible killing machine of their own creation. Outdated but lovable government 'secret weapon' kills off better designed but heartless successor. Hero strolls away from wreck and casually lights a trail of gasoline behind him. After everyone has given up, flatlined heart monitor picks up a pulse. Evil mastermind explains plans to hero he no longer sees as a threat. Hero refuses to kill defeated foe because he's 'better than that'. Transparent comic relief character makes hilarious understatements and offbeat comments. Cheerful psychopath revels in random murderous rampages. Nigh indestructible Goliaths hurl one another through a series of walls and other physical traumas that would kill a mere mortal. Man dispatches dozens of gun wielding enemies with nothing but skillful swordplay. Common sense and the laws of physics, biology and chemistry temporarily abandoned. Antagonist using loved one's murder as justification for misguided crusade.

I could go on but this is just exhausting. If you're over the age of twelve and not living in mom's basement, there's probably nothing here for you. Depressingly enough, it's not too far off of par for superhero movies so discount all I've written if you can't get enough of the genre.


The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of 'Hamlet' with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching 'Hamlet.' Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.

The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.

The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).

Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. 'Hamlet' is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.

This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it.


Having developed a critical eye for film, and a love for good cinema, I went to see Antwone Fisher with my breath symbolically held. While I am an unabashed fan of Denzel Washington - both of his skill as an actor and of his public persona; I am an honest enough fan to admit the (very few) times when he hasn't quite hit the mark in a film or two. And I could be wrong about those - after all, I am not an actor. But this was different - Denzel would pour his career's experience into, and guide, a film handling one of the most sensitive topics known to man - the abuse of a child. As his directorial debut, no less. And develop the film to point that it would successfully present the triumph of a man. I didn't want to be disappointed.

And I wasn't.

What I did see is a film full of promise that connected diverse audiences, and gave the inexperienced viewer a brief, but truthful eye into the life of a young man whose childhood was a living hell, but who triumphed despite it all. This film did it - and nary a dry eye of any color in the theatre proved it. It takes someone to know the topics in this film to know when truth is presented. It takes a talented filmmaker to tell you the story convincingly when you haven't experienced it. And if he can further draw an audience in, and cause an audience to emotionally respond, without pity, the filmmaker has done his job. In any film. Black, white, purple or polka dotted. That is what makes good cinema. Bravo, Denzel Washington, Derek Luke, Joy Bryant and most of all, Antwone Fisher - you have indeed won.


A Blair Witch-War Movie that is as much of a letdown as Bwitch was! The title says it all, save your money and your time and spend it on a good movie such as 'Once Upon a Time in America', 'The Shawshank Redemption' or 'Enemy at the Gates' (if you want to watch a GREAT 'war' movie) etc.

This movie, if it were a baseball team and the Major Leagues were the pinnacle and Single A was the rookies, then this movie was High school ball. It was filmed as if it were a High school drama club filming with their daddy's old camera. Sure they went into a hostile area (to make a film) but I don't call that brave, around here we call that plain stupid! This is a pass all the way! Now go watch it and then you tell me what you think.


Sure, the film is full of black militant stereotypes and much of the jargon of the time. In that sense, the movie has indeed dated. But as a satirical look at America's number one parasitical industry, advertising, it's still on target. But just as important is the counter- message, namely the effect of big bucks on those who would make the industry more socially responsibleno promoting war toys, alcohol, etc. Thus, the movie's also about the allures of capitalism. Note, for example, how Putney's garb suddenly changes to resemble Third-World revolutionary Fidel's, just before he pulls out of the firm. For a moment, it looks like Swope's mini-revolution has succeeded among his staff, and he's moving on, maybe to spread the movement. But then, the former militants succumb to the allure of big bucks and he departs shaking his head, perhaps to hijack a plane to Cuba. Downey's final word, however, is an ironical one as the Arab (I believe) burns down the money tower leaving the metaphorical structure of (advertising, capitalism) a smoking ruin. To me, this looks like change can only succeed as a cleansing act of destruction and not as a process of reforma message consistent with the radical spirit of the time.

Whatever the subtext, there are some genuinely funny moments, especially with the commercials that play as well now as they did then. Those who compare the anarchic style to that of the Marx Bros. make a good point. The throw-away lines fly thick and fast along with the outrageous set-ups. Forty years later, it's still a hard movie to get a consistent handle on. Despite the crudities, however, the film remains a work of daring originality with some genuinely telling moments.


Jud Nelson is an aspiring actor who becomes involved with a married couple who enjoy playing sadistic games on other people. The husband gets his jollies by burying people alive. If that isn't bad enough, he has a miniature video camera in each coffin so he can watch his victims suffocate.


In an interview, David Duchovny said he hasn't been able to watch even the first hour of this film - and neither should you. The scene where he asks the owner of a house where a murder was committed if he can look around - change the name he gives and he could had lifted his performance from just about any episode of the X-Files. He's on autopilot for the whole film. Brad Pitt overacts appallingly.


A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say 'Freddy Got Fingered' or 'Lost Reality', but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.

My Grade: D


Having long disdained network television programming, I remember the first time I caught an episode of 'Police Squad!'. It was totally by accident. It was during the show's initial network run on ABC in early 1982. I am a chronic channel surfer and was flipping the dial one evening when suddenly appeared 'Police Squad!''s opening credit sequence on my TV screen. I immediately recognized it as a sendup of the opening credits of 'M-Squad' starring Lee Marvin, one of my all-time favorite cop shows. I stopped surfing. Then of course came headquarters getting shot up, followed by the immortal Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln. By now I was saying to myself 'What the heck is THIS??'. Then came 'special guest star' Georg Stanford Brown getting flattened by a plummeting safe. I was hooked from that moment. The episode was 'Ring of Fear/A Dangerous Assignment', with its comic references to 'On The Waterfront', and 'Muhammed Ali', but most memorable of course were all the sight gags and non sequiturs. Leslie Nielsen and Alan North in their loose parody of Lee Marvin and Paul Newlan of 'M Squad' were an absolute riot. 'Finally', I said to myself, 'A network television program truly worth watching!!!'. Wouldn't you know it would be canceled just a few weeks later. Leave it to the networks -- I should have known. Anyway, I just bought the DVD collection of all six episodes and they are just as funny today as they were 27 years ago. The 'Naked Gun' movies were terrific as well, but I really missed Alan North (he was so good as Ed Hocken), Peter Lupus as Nordberg (what were they thinking casting OJ in that part?), and especially William Duell's 'Johnny' the shoeshine guy. Great stuff.


First, don't be fooled by my family name. My mother was full blooded Italian, so I really know Italian families, and I LOVE mobster movies, even the funny ones like this.

For those people who have bad rapped this film (you know who you are) you should have your movie privileges taken from you because you don't know what good is. This is a damn funny and well-styled film. The fact that almost nobody is Italian in it is part of the joke, so far as I can see. And what red-blooded straight male could complain about spending an hour and something with the likes of Michelle Pfieffer? Puh-lease! When I saw this film it won me over with the opening song by Rosemary Clooney who was as Irish as one can get, but her pronunciation of the Italian words in 'Mambo Italiano' is flawless and sets the tone of what is to follow perfectly. (Hell, I even bought the record the next day because of it.) Just the look of every garish thing in the apartment that I have personally seen in my relatives houses, though not in the same place (which I found hysterical) sold it for me.

This movie is like Goodfellas on laughing gas. I just wonder why there are no Burger Worlds and what happened to the food these guys were supposed to get? My guess is the crew ate it. 'The Fries are crispy. The shakes are creamy.' My mouth is watering almost as much as it is thinking of the gorgeous Ms. Pfieffer. (And I never trusted clowns anyway.) And the three best things about this film are Mercedes Ruehl's achingly funny mob wife spurned, Dean Stockwell as her philandering husband Tony 'The Tiger' and last, but DEFINITELY not least, the great mugging by Oliver Platt who should get more comic roles. And note to myself: find out where that black chick went. Ouch! Why does she work so infrequently? This picture is right alongside the great mob movies as it should be.


The year 1983 saw a strange phenomenon; two rival Bond films. 'Octopussy', starring Roger Moore, was part of the official Cubby Broccoli Bond franchise. 'Never Say Never Again', made by a rival producer, is, apart from the awful 'Casino Royale', the only Bond movie which does not form part of that franchise. Its big attraction was that it brought back the original Bond, Sean Connery; its title reputedly derived from Connery's remark after 'Diamonds Are Forever' that he would never again play the role. Some have complained that Connery was, at 53, too old for the role, but he was in fact three years younger than his successor Moore, who not only made 'Octopussy' in the same year but went on to make one further Bond film, 'A View to a Kill', two years later.

The film owes its existence to the settlement of a lawsuit about the film rights to Ian Fleming's work. It is perhaps unfortunate that the terms of the settlement included a clause that the new film had to be a remake of 'Thunderball', as that was perhaps not the greatest of the Connery Bonds. (A remake of 'Dr No' or 'Goldfinger' might have worked better). The plot is much the same as that of the earlier film; the terrorist organisation SPECTRE, acting together with a megalomaniac tycoon named Largo, have stolen two American nuclear warheads and are attempting to hold the world's governments to ransom by threatening to detonate them unless they receive a vast sum of money. It falls to Bond, of course, to save the world by tracking down the missing missiles.

The film is fortunate in that it has not just one but two of the most beautiful Bond girls of all, Barbara Carrera as the seductive but lethal Fatima Blush and Kim Basinger as Largo's girlfriend Domino who defects to Bond's side after learning of her lover's evil plans. A number of the Bond films have a plot that hangs upon the hero's ability to win over the villain's mistress or female accomplice- there are similar developments, for example, in 'Goldfinger', 'Live and Let Die' and 'The Living Daylights'. In the official series, Bond's ally is normally regarded as the female lead, but here Carrera, playing the villainess, is billed above Basinger, who was a relatively unknown actress at the time. Basinger, of course, has gone on to become one of Hollywood's biggest stars, whereas Carrera is one of a number of Bond girls who have somewhat faded from view.

Of the villains, Max von Sydow makes an effective Blofeld, the head of SPECTRE, but Klaus Maria Brandauer seemed too bland and nonthreatening as Largo, except perhaps during the 'Domination' game, a more sophisticated variant on those violent computer games such as 'Space Invaders' that were so popular in the early eighties. Brandauer can be an excellent actor in his native German, in films such as 'Mephisto' and 'Oberst Redl', but he does not comes across so expressively in English.

One of the film's features is that it both follows the normal Bond formula and, at times, departs from it. There is the standard world-in-peril plot, chase sequences, a series of exotic locations, glamorous women, sinister villains and a specially written theme song based on the film's title. There is, however, no extended pre-credits sequence, and we see some familiar characters in a new light. For example, Bond's boss M becomes a languid, supercilious aristocrat, his American colleague Felix Leiter is shown as black for the only time, and the scientist Q is portrayed by Alec McCowen as a disillusioned cynic with (despite his characteristically upper-class Christian name of Algernon) a distinctly working-class accent. There is also an amusing cameo from Rowan Atkinson as a bumbling British diplomat. Although Connery was perhaps not quite a good here as he was in some of his earlier films in the role, this ringing the changes on the familiar theme makes this one of the more memorable Bonds. 7/10

A goof. Rowan Atkinson's character states that he is from the British Embassy in Nassau. As, however, the Bahamas is a Commonwealth country, Britain would have a High Commission in its capital, not an Embassy.


'Brotherhood of Satan' is one of the most underrated horror films of all times.Why it hasn't achieved a cult status is beyond me.This is a chilling tale of terror and witchcraft which contains one of the most powerful and disturbing climaxes in the annals of screen horror.In the small American town some children have disappeared and their parents been violently murdered.What is the cause of hysteria?The film is really eerie,some scenes are genuinely unnerving and definitely not easily forgotten.The suspense never lets up,the acting is really good,and the climax is bizarre and disturbing.Check out this forgotten gem of satanic horror.Absolutely recommended.


I walked into the movie theater, with no expectations for the film I was about to witness, 'Everything is Illuminated'. I walked out with a joy I have barely come to feel with American films. The directorial debut of actor, Leiv Schreiber, the film follows a man on his journey through the past, accompanied by an eccentric group including a brake-dancing barely English-speaking punk from the Eukraine, his grandfather who believes he is blind, and their crazy dog. The first half of the film is funny and smart with an extremely European flavor in the usage of small but wonderful characters, while the second half of the film descends into a somber story of discovery and the holocaust. This little movie brings out so many emotions, and so many colors, with such a wonderful conclusion and is more than just a story of illumination, but also of relationships and connections. The acting is incredibly powerful, the story mysterious and interesting, and the artistic appeal of the cinematography, to die for. With some brilliant and absolutely touching scenes 'Everything is Illuminated' managed to capture my heart.


I think the context of the story has been covered by other posters so I would just like to write about the impact this film had on me.

I first saw this film the year of it's release around 1987. My school organised a trip to the cinema to see it, for an RE project I think. We all went along of course excited because we were on a school trip to the cinema! Little did we know what we were about to experience. To this day I still remember the feelings it invoked in me and i remembered crying a lot as were most of my friends. I think at the age we were we found it shocking and quiet rightly outraged in our own youthful way .It had such an impact on me that I joined the Anti Apartheid Movement the same year.

I think it served it's purpose in my case.


I saw an advanced screening for this movie tonight. I absolutely loved it. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat all night. Cillian Murphy is extremely creepy as the villain. For those of you who have seen Batman Begins, his character was much scarier in this film. He played his character very well. The scariest 'bad guy,' I have seen in awhile. Rachel McAdams was great. Everyone in the audience laughed, gasped and cheered at the same time, as if we were on cue. The suspense is held through out the movie. THe amazing part is that the end was not anti-climatic. I was not disappointed in the end. I felt satisfied. The trailer does not do the movie justice. The movie is much better than the trailer indicated. Do not wait for this movie to come out on video. Go see it. Although, I did not have to pay to see this movie, I would have gladly given 10.75 to see it. Enjoy!


'Masks' is a moving film that works on many levels. At its simplest, it is the haunting story of a street performer who bonds with a young child while trying to pass along his creative art (masks) to the next generation. Although, at times the story makes the old man into a Job, it is so well crafted (written, acted, directed, wonderful production values), it is easy to move beyond his plight. And, if you hang with it, the film is ultimately very sweet and uplifting. Kudos all around. This is a wonderful film for children as well as adults. The trick is how to get Americans who may not like foreign language films to see it!


Discovering something, the journey is so much more fun, so much more surreal and so much more emotionally galvanizing than when you finally arrive at the destination. Falling in love is perhaps one of the most opulent feelings in the world. You feel energized, invigorated and alive. You simply want to be around that person every second of the day and the very sound of their voice gets you excited and sometimes aroused. Love, and all the physical and emotional side effects that comes with it, is pure bliss. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess, but when you first begin your journey together, nothing can compare to it.

Diane Lane and Richard Gere play Adrienne Willis and Dr. Paul Flanner, two emotionally scarred middle aged individuals. In this film, they are about to embark on that mystical journey together, where love, and the discovery of the emotions along the way, will help save them.

Lane is dealing with the typical jerk of an ex-husband who still loves her, but in her eyes, only because the woman he cheated with no longer wants him. As hurt as she was by him, as much as she really dislikes him, there is a part of her that is actually considering taking him back. Why you might ask? Because in life, and love, sometimes comfort supersedes intelligence. Yes, this man cheated on her but she has kids with him, she built a life with him and there is obviously still a connection with him.

Richard Gere plays a recently divorced husband and estranged father. He also just lost a patient as she reacted negatively to the anesthetic. He is now being sued by her family and he is guilt ridden but hardened about the issue. This is what brings him to Rodanthe in the first place. Although his lawyer told him not to, he felt compelled to visit the woman's husband in Rodanthe. He stays at the Inn that Adrienne is taking care of. Soon, they find comfort in each other's arms and discover that they too can have a second chance in life.

By now this sounds like a simple idea for a film, and although it might be something you've seen or read about before, Gere and Lane simply own the film. Diane Lane lights the screen up with her smile. Her eyes twinkle in the dark and the life she brings to the character is one worth watching. Gere's character is a little different. He is more hardened and bitter. It takes Adrienne's pain and her passion to bring him out of his shell. He blames quietly himself for his strained relationship with his son and her secretly blames himself for the death of the patient. On the outside he tells anyone who will listen that it is not his fault, and that she was a 1 in 50,000 casualty. But deep down, it eats away at him. They find each other at a time when both need someone to listen.

Gere and Lane have been in film together before but this is the first time they play lovers. They were married in Unfaithful but here they play lovers finding each other when the people in their lives have abandoned them. They have a spark and a real chemistry. I would love to see more films with them together. In fact, I'd love to see more films with Diane Lane but that's a story for another time.

Nights in Rodanthe is a very passionate and romantic film about two lost souls who save each other. They both become better people, they both become stronger people. I enjoyed it immensely and would recommend it to anyone, not just couples. This is a film about redemption, absolution, and second chances.

It will also ask you to bring some hankies.

8/10


Michelle Rodriguez is a well-built high-school senior who discovers that she has a powerful punch and begins amateur training at a Brooklyn gym. Santiago Douglas is a a handsome young man, barely older than she, who also trains there. They meet after class, so to speak, and feel attracted to each other. No sex. Santiago has been instructed to save it for his next bout.

Both are participants in a 'gender-blind' athletic program that makes no distinctions between males and females, a misguided attempt to level the athletic playing field.

A conservative radio commentator recently announced -- and I swear I'm not making this up -- 'Let's face it; the president is black.' I'm here to make an equally perspicacious observation -- 'Men and women are different.' Now, in 99 cases out of 100, this needn't make any difference in physical performance. But in the top one percent -- trained athletes whose skills have been honed to a fine edge -- men generally have the advantage. With their narrow hips they can run faster. And they have greater muscle mass and upper torso strength. These differences in body build make it possible for women to give birth and raise children and for men to catch and kill food for them. This sexual bifurcation is the result of the perfectly normal process of natural selection. Without it, there might not be any humans at all. And that, boys and girls, is why they have men's events and women's events at the Olympics. I speak to you as your anthropologist. That will be ten cents, PayPal preferred.

That's why I called this gender-blind program misguided. As talented a boxer as Rodrigues is, as she approaches the zenith of the game, she will eventually lose to a male.

That's where the complication arises in this movie. Rodrigues is finally matched against her boy friend, Douglas. Neither wants to loose any anger on the other, not to mention roundhouse rights, but the pride of both is at stake, and the pride is both personal and gender related. Douglas refuses to fight a woman in the ring. And Rodriguez is offended by what she sees as his patronizing attitude. It ends happily.

I wasn't really expecting much from the film. I thought it would be a rip off of Clint Eastwood's 'Million Dollar Baby' until I discovered that this was released years earlier. And I'd never heard of the director or of any of the performers. That sort of obscurity generally augers ill -- made-for-television weepers and so forth.

But I was surprised at how neatly this is put together. The total absence of bathos left me open mouthed. So did the minimal use of boxing clichés -- the frayed ropes, the blood, the cutting of the swollen eye, the battered post-bout faces, the fat and sweaty onlooker shouting 'Kill him!', the slow motion landing of glove on nose, the spray of sweat from the mauled head, the heroic music signaling the long-awaited apotheosis of the victor. None of that here -- well, almost none. The whole plot could be considered formulaic. Tough kid finds outlet in the ring, etc.

The feeling you're left with is that this is probably pretty much what these amateur contests are like. Different from those we see on TV and in ordinary movies. No bells ring, for instance, Instead a dancing and observant referee yells 'Stop!' And 'Box!' The contestants wear head gear. The gym is populated not by a crowd of cheering spectators, but only by a handful of people who have some particular interest in the goings on. It's a clean movie, despite the rather grim setting and the unhappy family dynamics.

Michelle Rodriguez can look pretty mean, what with her muscular bulk and her eyes glowing under her lowered brow, but once you get used to the idea that this is a girl who can beat you to a pulp anytime she wants, and once you hear the feminine contours of her supersegmentals, she ain't bad. (A scene in which she battles her father to the floor is overdoing it.) It was a little hard to understand Douglas's restraint when Rodriguez crawls all over him in bed. The director, Karyn Kusama, has chosen her talent carefully.

Shows what you can do with some talent, imagination, and a modicum of money. There ought to be more films like it. Take one of those multi-billion dollar blockbusters full of dinosaurs or space ships and spread the generosity around a little.


This year's Eurovision was to me a big disappointment. I've watched the Eurovision Song Contest every year since 1986 (well, at least that's the earliest one I can remember, and I was only 2 at the time). As any other year this one contained both good, bad and horrible songs - nothing new there. However this year's show was the worst one I can remember. Only very few good (decent's probably more like it) songs and a lot of absolutely terrible songs.

Turkey's winner song 'Every Way That I Can' sounded to me like a rip-off of Turkish singer Tarkan's hit 'Simarik', just sounding a lot worse. It didn't deserve to win from my point of view. Belgium's song 'Sanomi', coming in second, was a no-language song. Wonder what's next? Animals singing? Nevertheless the music for the song was quite catchy, giving the song a kind of dreamy feeling, to which the 'lyrics' seemed appropriate. One of the better songs, but that's not saying much.

After one of the closest races in Eurovision history Russian duo t.A.T.u. ended in third place just three points behind Turkey and behind Belgium, with 'Ne Ver', Ne Boisia' ('Don't Trust, Don't Be Afraid'). To me t.A.T.u. was one of the very few highlights of the show, surprising just about everyone by being some of the most covered up girls of all the female contestants. They let their song do the talking and if we ignore the fact that they failed to pitch a few times in the first chorus, they let the song speak very well indeed.

The biggest surprise when looking at the scoreboard was Austria. The bookmakers here in Denmark had the biggest odds on that song - a song that indeed was beyond horrible - but ended up in 8th place. Could it be that bum of his being shaken to the rhythm of the song? That performance was the one that made me and my family laugh the most, not because it looked good, but because it looked so stupid that it was actually fun.

Sweden did what they do the best; ABBA. In 1999 they won with 'Take Me To Your Heaven', by sounding like ABBA. In 2001 they made the top 10 with 'Listen To Your Heartbeat', again sounding like ABBA, and once again this year they did it ABBA-style, again ending in the top 10.

England was finally punished for making those absolutely horrible, non-catching songs, that they've been the past years.

Ireland ripped off the winner from 2000, 'Fly On The Wings Of Love'. And I could go on and on about how bad the songs were.

I feel a bit sorry for the Aussies, who this year finally got the chance to see the Eurovision Song Contest. They deserved better than this.

I wasn't surprised by the show though. The Eurovision from 2000 to me stands out as one of the best in recent years. 2001 was quite good, but not as good. 2002 was okay, but certainly no more. This year was quite simply disappointing.

Let's hope it'll get better next year. If not for us, then at least for the Aussies.

4/10. One for t.A.T.u., one for the close race, one for the butt-shaking and one for all the rest.


Detective Russell Logan(Lou Diamond Phillips)has a major problem on his hands. The serial killer, Patrick Channing(Jeff Kober), for whom psychic extraordinaire Tess(Tracy Griffith)helped him capture, has been resurrected with The First Power(..given to him by Satan after his execution in the gas chamber)and can possess the bodies of the weak. Somehow, Russell, who joins forces with Tess(..who has an understanding of what they are up against), will have to stop Channing or many women will continue to die at his bloody hands. They will seek help from Sister Marguerite(Elizabeth Arlen)who has tried to inform her superiors in the Catholic church of The First Power, but has been denied access to a weapon that can stop Channing..a cross with a blade that can penetrate the heart of Channing ridding the world of his evil. She'll take it anyway and lend a helping hand to Russell, who'll need all the help he can get when Channing kidnaps Tess preparing her for some sort of Satanic ritual/ceremony.

In the film, Mykelti Williamson, always a reliable welcome supporting actor, gets the partner of Russell role..so you know what will happen to him. As in films of this type, everyone around Russell is dying, but when he attempts to kill Channing, he's merely murdering the weak host of some other poor soul he possesses.

Pure occult rubbish..stupid from the gate to the finish line. Phillips and Griffith try, I'll give them that, but in a flick like this they don't stand a chance. Kober, who is normally often always effective as the heavy, is really handed nothing more than a goofy villain who leaps in the air and tosses rotten quips.


Having seen the short a number of times at horror movie marathons, I believe it to be a humorous parody that slices to the main point of its reference.

Though the themes are crusty and stale to today's viewers, it is by no means a crumby waste of time.

Though being a student film gives little rise to an excuse, the proof is that it appears crafted with care on a budget of little to no dough.

As noted by another reviewer, it is less than ten minutes which is plenty of time to cleanse the viewing palate with a toast of joy, sit back and loaf idly through the film.

I think this short-bread of a film should be enjoyed as an appetizer for the title reference and the viewer should relax and roll with it.


'Nicodemus' is almost a copy of 'Red' in the odd behavior sense, but this episode focuses on other people in Clark Kent's unpredictable life. When a poisonous flower finds it's way into Smallville Jonathan Kent is the first to be effected by it. the flower causes people to reverse their behavior and when it effects Jonathan, he becomes short tempered and violent, however Clark manages to stop him from doing anything rash until his father finally passes out. okay. so far, so good. next up is Lana. the Episode was good up to that point, for the flower causes her to attempt seducing Clark. at the last moment, he refuses her but the damage has already been done. this episode causes the wrong impressions and isn't suitable for people under the age of twenty, due to it's adult content. the first part was good, the last part (focusing on the effect the flower has on Pete) was good, but the middle that was all about Lana's alternate personality, was most defiantly not, and that ruined what could have been a brilliant Episode. I give this Episode two.


This is one of the oddest movies I have watched in a long while. Usually if they are this strange I bail out early and rarely regret it. Luckily, I held on for this one. While I can't say that this is a great movie (it isn't), I can say that watching it is rather like a good acid trip - only a few really awful moments and the rest filled with 'did I really just see that?' wonderment. Lots of laugh out loud moments. A great cast of characters with Meredith Eaton outstanding as the dwarf daughter-in-law with an attitude. Keep an open mind.


this was a personal favorite of mine when i was young, it had everything that was great with 90's kids movies... lovable dinosaurs, cute kids, an eccentric villain, and a few great songs (and not the typical little mermaid/beauty and the beast type songs, but ones that are atually entertaining)! i ran into this movie again recently and i still love it as much as ever! i recommend that everyone of every age should see this movie, and i definitely think that it should be introduced to the younger generations! sorry not the most informative, i'm in kinda a rush... just please, trust me. all who go against this movie are killing their inner child!


I'm glad that I did not expect too much when I saw this sequel to one of my favourite childhood films. The storyline was dull and unconvincing as were the characters, and I was disappointed that some of the characters in the original were not in this sequel. I also did not think that the characters themselves were similar from the previous film. Charlie had changed, and now, he has a girlfriend. The first film had some good music, but the music in this film was unmemorable. In short, this film just did not do it for me. And, looking at other user feedback, it looks like it didn't do it for a lot of you. It's not worth watching.


I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest.


The John Goodman program was pretty awful, but this thing just plain stinks. The one and only thing in this mess that made me smile was recognizing the voice of Patrick Starfish as Frosty. The story is hopeless, written by somebody who has garbled memories of childhood rebelliousness but has never gained any adult sense of perspective in the intervening years. Paranoia rules the dark world that these characters inhabit. Everybody is unpleasant, and for no reason. The plot is predictable but the show lurches from one inexplicable, unconnected scene to another in such a pointless way there is no fun in watching it. The worst thing is nobody in the production crew seems to have ever seen snow!


The third Muppet movie is perhaps the most relaxed and pleasing, with the gang taking their modest college musical to the bright (yet volatile) lights of Broadway filled with typically naïve optimism. Of course, their first attempt fails and Kermit (leader of the group and author of the show) blows his top; so, the others all go their separate ways so that he won't have to feel responsible for them. Kermit himself befriends a young wannabe fashion designer making ends meet by serving food at her father's diner (the old man, then, has a line in particularly tortuous non-sequiturs!). We get the usual cameo appearances by a variety of stars: Art Carney (as a producer), James Coco (as an overzealous dog owner), Dabney Coleman (as a confidence trickster), Elliott Gould (who was also in THE MUPPET MOVIE [1979]), Gregory Hines, Liza Minnelli (as herself  having her portrait at a classy restaurant replaced by Kermit's, sporting fake moustache, as an ostensibly celebrated entrepreneur in a ruse to attract publicity to the Muppets' show), Brooke Shields, and even director John Landis (in possibly the film's funniest scene as a Broadway producer before whom Kermit appears acting streetwise and chummy and hilariously donning shades and an Afro wig!). The other Muppets more or less go through their typical paces, with (regrettably) less space given to Gonzo this time around; while Miss Piggy is something of an acquired taste with me, the scenes in which the latter spies on what she takes to be Kermit's romance with the waitress  and especially her violent reaction to this  are undeniably funny. What disappoints, however, is the climactic show itself (after a fairly redundant midsection wherein Kermit gets amnesia and eventually picks up advertising on Madison Avenue) which, rather than the expected splashy routines, procures nothing more original than the wedding ceremony of Kermit and his eternal flame Miss Piggy!


The movie started very well..so far Isabelle's exorcism could be believed....but later, gosh!!! I didn't know if it was a horror movie, a drama one or a Must Not See one! The possessed creature attacking the sheriff had no connection at all with the movie....the make up!! well it looked pretty real at beginning, but at the end, last part of movie, the make up (especially teeth and eyes) was very exaggerated. If you want a good 'EXorcism' movie watch 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose'.

Together with 'Hard Candy' (Totally boring, pathetic plot and ending), these two movies are the worst I've seen from Lionsgate!! But well the movie company has given horror movie fans excellent films, but with this one, you will wish you never rent it!! Exorcism movie fans, just stay with two 'The Exorcist' and 'Emily Rose's Exorcism'


Just saw this movie 2 days ago. A very interesting look at people and our world through the world of wine. I have no special interest in wine, and yet I found this very enlightening. The director gave me the impression that he has the ability to show people as they are. While he exposes a lot of things that are below the surface he manages not to take a stand and leave that for the viewer. He shows a lot of compassion to people (and dogs) and sympathy and let people tell their story and in the same time exposes what they don't want to tell.

The movie shows us where our world is going to, what are the benefits and what is the heavy price we pay. It is a movie about the love of wine and the love of making it big, personal and global, character and formula.

The real stars of the people for me are the older wine makers with their disillusioned look at the world and themselves.

It takes some time to get use to the hectic camera moves and editing, but it's worth it.

Highly recommended.


This is a movie that should be viewed and treated as a piece of art. This is an oblivious labour of love by the Schrader brothers about the life of Yukio Mishima that is full truly artistic elements. The movie jumps from color to black and white, past to present, fictional works by Mishima to him. All without being confusing in the least bit. The only thing that gets me is that the entire movie, with the exception of the narrator's spoken parts is in Japanese. Still a masterpiece that deserves an audience but hasn't found won. Criterion, if you are reading this, this is a film that should be released under your imprint with as much extras as possible. This film truley deserves more. 10/10


If you a purist, don't waste your time - otherwise, hold onto your hat and enjoy the adventure. I loved the Stewart Granger/Deborah Kerr version - I've seen it dozens of times, but this film is every bit as good, only different. I won't detail the differences because it would spoil the film. Also, it is a pleasure to see Alison Doody again (I'm a huge Indiana Jones fan), Patrick Swayze is good as Quatermain, and the supporting cast is superb. I find the quality of the supporting cast one of the trademarks of a Hallmark Production and this film was no exception. The cinematography is splendid and the score is perfect. If you are looking for entertainment, you won't be disappointed.


I went to see this thinking it would be a great comedy and a comeback for Robin Williams, but when I saw it I realized I had bee lied to by advertisers as this is more drama than comedy, although it has a few really good laughs in it. It felt like I was watching two movies. One was a funny romp with Robin Williams that should have been the whole basin for the movie anyway, but you also get a techno thriller movie with political angst in the middle. I really don't know how to classify this film. But I can tell you it was good and I did laugh, not as much as I had hoped, but at least Williams is back in the right direction. See this but know before going it is not all comedy and is a little intense.


Avoid the USA version. It is with added US footage and the worst dubbing you've ever heard probably done by New York amateurs. The dubbing is so bad that it sounds like Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think a black guy from the Bronx does Chiba's voice. I couldn't watch the entire film it was that bad. Instead of this Americanized version watch Chiba's other greats like The Streetfighter or Karate Warriors.


This Stan Laurel comedy short is a cute little parody of the Valentino film BLOOD AND SAND. If you've seen BLOOD AND SAND, then you'll probably appreciate this film and laugh at a few of the scenes that mock the Valentino film. However, if you have not see that movie and just watch this film, you'll probably not be very impressed--though I really liked the title cards, us the word 'bull' was used repeatedly in very funny ways.

Stanly plays 'Vaselino' a bullfighter who seems pretty dim-witted and wins only because the bulls seem to lazy and non-aggressive. Even the bull at the end of the film who has supposedly killed ten men is obviously just a domesticated bull.

Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but still a cute and harmless film.


I couldn't make sense of this film much of the time, and neither could anyone else, based on other reviews. The opening scene of this film has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the story. In it, a photojournalist with a big mustache cancels his vacation to get away from his girlfriend. He is assigned to photograph a mountain range. It's rumored to be haunted, but I couldn't tell whether he heard that from his boss or later in the film. On his way, he meets a beautiful writer (Patty Shepard) and convinces her to join him on his working trip. Throughout the film, there is this terrible music score, mostly consisting of noisy singing that makes you want to scream 'SHUT UP ALREADY!!!' What really will gall a person is that the film always seems like it's about to become good, though it never does. There is beautiful mountain scenery and some genuinely creepy atmosphere. The inn and the silent, abandoned old buildings scattered on the mountain are rather ominous. The foggy nights look real, not like someone put an artificial fog machine on the set. And the idea, while not original, had potential. But it never does improve, at least not enough to be worthwhile. Here's how it goes, more or less. They stop at this inn run by a weird innkeeper (you expect him to be named Igor) with a hearing problem. There is a scene where the writer thinks a peeping tom is in her window, but the scene is so dark, I had no idea what was going on. Whether this was poor lighting or a poor film transfer is unknown to me. In any event, we never find out know what happened. There is a scene where she wanders off during the night. Whether she is sleepwalking or mesmerized by the witches of the title is never explained. Another scene which is never explained is when their car is stolen, then found again, with nothing stolen. They wind up in this apparently abandoned mountain village whose sole inhabitant is this seemingly kindly old woman. There are other things, including a chained wild man in a cave who is never explained, an attempt to sacrifice the writer in some way (will they kill her or brainwash her into joining them?), the witches themselves, a bunch of brunette women in white robes who don't show up until the last 15 minutes of the film and whose practices and beliefs are never explained. Even the closing scene doesn't make any sense. When all is said and done, most people will be saying, 'Huh?'


There are films that make careers. For George Romero, it was NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD; for Kevin Smith, CLERKS; for Robert Rodriguez, EL MARIACHI. Add to that list Onur Tukel's absolutely amazing DING-A-LING-LESS. Flawless film-making, and as assured and as professional as any of the aforementioned movies. I haven't laughed this hard since I saw THE FULL MONTY. (And, even then, I don't think I laughed quite this hard... So to speak.) Tukel's talent is considerable: DING-A-LING-LESS is so chock full of double entendres that one would have to sit down with a copy of this script and do a line-by-line examination of it to fully appreciate the, uh, breadth and width of it. Every shot is beautifully composed (a clear sign of a sure-handed director), and the performances all around are solid (there's none of the over-the-top scenery chewing one might've expected from a film like this). DING-A-LING-LESS is a film whose time has come.


If there was a scale below 1, it would get a -10, following in the footsteps of Godspell. The acting (if there was such a thing) was atrocious, the plot in shambles. And Rene Russo was sickeningly sweet in her role, enough to make a person retch. Ten thumbs down for a dumb movie. Saving grace: kudos for era costuming.


From the beginning, 'Til There Was You was on the right track, setting up for the big finish where it would all come together. But the thing is, it didn 't. I found the ending extremely disappointing, but maybe in someway it was the right ending; a little more realistic you could say. Judge for yourself.


This is Jackie Chan's best film, and my personal favourite. After the disappointing U.S made 'The Protector' directed by James Glickenhaus, Jackie took the concept and placed it slap bang into Hong Kong. This is also probably Jackies most violent movie, with the audience cringing at the bone breaking stunts.

The action is fast and furious, Jackie and his crew really did put max effort into the fight design. Bones were broken and blood spilt in the process of making this film as you'll see in the credits.

The script is a simple cops and robbers affair, nothing special, after all it was written around the action. I must say that the english version has some dodgy dubbing, but it shouldn't put you off too much.

So, get the lads round, crack open the beers and enjoy. By the way, the film was nicknamed 'Glass Story' by the stunt crew. Why? I'll let you find out for yourself!!


Sorry, but aside from Kim Basinger doing a good job acting scared, this was one of the worst thrillers I've seen in awhile. Logic is thrown out as 4 young guys terrorize this woman outside a crowded mall then shoot a security guard. Yet no one seems to notice. Then, instead of screaming for help or racing back to the mall, she drives off and ends up in the middle of the woods with the guys in hot pursuit. I can't even describe how silly it is seeing this woman fleeing from 4 retarded thugs, carrying a red toolbox, screaming for God to come help her, and then having sex with one of them after brutally killing the others. Please trust me, this is bad and a bit tasteless as well.


The first time I saw this film, I loved it. It was different.

I am a Christian (Bible believing). I don't go along with the crowd of right wing believers. I dropped out of that atmosphere.

To me in their attempts to take over our government they are doing what Judas tried to do. I call it the Judas Syndrome.

Judas didn't get it, even though Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world.

This film certainly showed some of that.

I also liked that Jesus enjoyed the simple pleasure of playing games and jokes with his disciples.

Also he was a very gorgeous Jesus.

It's a watch-over and over movie.

Very satisfying.


Rutger Hower fans Don't BE FOOLED - he only plays a cameo in this movie and that's IT. This movie loses an extra point for that scam. I think Rutger Hower has a total of about 2 very short scenes and 2 very short voice-overs.

The female lead for this film is way above this poor material in looks and talent-she's great, this movie is a dog and she's wasted on it. The story is of a Lawyer hoping for that partnership one day at the firm getting suckered into having to cart the Boss' niece across country. They have several encounters on the road with various oddballs and that is the vehicle for a variety of skits and the dude that played Napoleon Dynamite is thrown in the mix as a side character for good measure.

This is a road-trip where extreme circumstances put our repressed hero to the test and he slowly winds up loosening up a little bit by the end of the movie, ah isn't love grand, yadda yadda..

Only watch this film if you want to see a hot chick be annoying to a dork in a truck for an hour and half.


About your terrible movie copying Beethoven. As a professional musician it's my duty to watch every movie made about any composer and Beethoven is one of my favorites. When Hungarians and Americans meet, it's a terrible combination of empty over the top emotions combined with the worst taste possible. You proved it in your terrible b-movie. The only thing that carries the movie is the music. Of course you didn't bother to look further than the good but in my taste contrived performances of the Tackacs quartet, but OK I have to admit that the performances at least have quality as contrast to the movie you've made. It starts of with the dying DEAF Beethoven who perfectly understands Anna who is merely whispering. Beethoven's hearing during the movie get's better by the minute, but that must be because of some vague divine thing. Then there is the quite impossible semi-pornographic 'eyes wide shut' double-conducting scene which is totally over the top with the luscious Anna and the crying nephew in the end (who also cries in the deleted scenes with constant red eyes, my GOD what a performance). And as culmination the rip-off from Amadeus, with Beethoven dictating music to Anna not in notes but in total nonsense, which she understands perfectly but no-one else in your audience even trained professional musicians will understand. Of course your reaction will be that negative response is a response at least, but I can assure you that Beethoven himself is turning in his grave because of your worthless creation and with reason. This so called homage is blasphemy and I am so sorry to have rented one of the worst movies ever made even though it's about my favorite subject. Ed Harris and others, you cannot comprehend the greatness of Beethoven in your wildest dreams and certainly not after a couple of lessons in conducting and violin playing. That's the trouble with you Americans: you think you can grasp everything even when it takes a lifetime of hard work. Yeah we can do it anyway! Remember that a good product comes with hard labor, talent, devotion and professionalism. All these you creators of Copying Beethoven lack. See you in kindergarten.


Just an hour ago I finished watching this my friend. As a fans of Dragonball we think that this movie is so bad that is good. We will say one thing : without a sixpack beers there is now way you can survive through this movie. This movie should be watched with a many Dragonball fans to laugh their ass off. The best character in the movie is the lord Horn, his makeup, his laugh, and behaviour crates the unforgettable experience. What we liked in this movie, was the fact that the island of Turtle Man was the same as in cartoon version. We believe that the only character similar to the one in the cartoon is the Turtle Man. He is also a sex maniac and kind of idiot too.


Hayao Miyazaki has no equal when it comes to using hand-drawn animation as a form of storytelling, yet often he is being compared to Walt Disney. That is just so unfair, because it becomes apparent by watching Miyazaki's films that he is the superior artist. He really has a gift of thrilling both grownups and children, and Laputa is indeed one awesome ride.

But where can I begin to describe a movie so magical and breathtaking! Miyazaki's works have never cease to amaze me. Laputa is an adventure of a grand scale and I wonder how a film can be so packed with details and imagination. Ask yourself this question: if you are a kid dreaming of an adventure so grand in scope and so magical, what would it be like? The answer would be to strap yourself in some seat and watch Laputa, because it's truly a childhood fantasy come true. Every minute of the movie is rich and engrossing ... from the train chase to the amazing air-flying sequences... and to the wonderous sight of the floating castle itself. Not to mention the excellent score by Joe Hisaishi! Everything you ever possibly want from an adventure movie is here.


This film has the kernel of a really good story. The work of the men and women of the Coast Guard, especially in the North Pacific, is the stuff of heroes and legends. This film mucks up a good story with three endings (none satisfying), a couple of unneeded and pointless bar fights and two alleged 'romantic' relationships that have as much spark as dead campfire. The rescue scenes are great - even if the computer generation is hokey and the scenarios are pretty unreal - but the backstory is lame and disappointing. Costner is good - especially his hand acting (watch for it). Ashton Kutcher is flat but not terrible. The main female characters are one dimensional. The best female is one of the Coast Guard sailors in the rescue center and she's on camera for about two minutes in the whole film. It could have been an excellent film - and Costner needs one!


Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. Higher Learning says its OK for blacks to torment white people because they're all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. Stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. Incompetent acting, direction, and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. An appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed.


Released in December of 1957, Sayonara went on to earn 8 Oscar nominations and would pull in 4 wins. Red Buttons won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in his role as airman Joe Kelly who falls in love with a Japanese woman while stationed in Kobe during the Korean War. Oscar nominated for Best Leading Actor, Marlon Brando plays Major Lloyd Gruver, a Korean War flying ace reassigned to Japan, who staunchly supports the military's opposition to marriages between American troops and Japanese women and tries without any success to talk his friend Joe Kelly out of getting married. Ironically Marlon Brandos character soon finds love of his own in a woman of Japanese descent. This movie highlights the prejudices and cultural differences of that time. Filmed in beautiful color and with stunning backgrounds I found this movie to be well worth watching just for these effects alone. Good movie, gimme more...GimmeClassics


Is Thursday an original film? Heck no, but it is a lot of fun! I just caught this buried on the movie channels one night and it was an enjoyable flick. I was expecting much but what I got was some interesting scenes (I really liked the first seen at the convenience store), some amusing stories as told by the characters and a little bit of action thrown in the mix as well. Some good performances from young actors, Paulina Porizkova was good and I was particularly impressed with Aaron Eckhart (who has gone on to impress me further in Yours Friends and Neighbours' and Erin Brokovich'). So if you want 90 minutes of easy going fun go ahead and check out Thursday'.


Another variation and improvisation on the famous and beloved children tale, La Bete (1975) aka The Beast tries to imagine (in very graphic and what may seem offensive and disturbing but in reality rather silly and comical way), what actually happened between Beauty and the Beast? I am amused by many reviews and comments that seem to look too deeply into this movie. I would not go so far as saying that it is a serious and dark exploration of such subjects as sexual frustration, longing, fulfillment, or satirical criticizing of the catholic Religion. I would not even call it a horror-erotic movie. It's more of the parody on all genres it touches or mentions even though it's got some shocking moments in all departments that sure will stay in your memory.

The long (way too long) scene between an Aristocratic young woman and the supposedly horrifying but the most laughable I've ever seen in the movies creature with truly impressive...well anatomy, is set to the clavichord music of Scarlatti and is hysterical. My husband and I both laughed out loud at the exaggerated details of the encounter. The moral of the scene is - beauty can and will defeat the monster. The question is - who is the target audience for the film? For an erotic picture, it is too verbose; for an art movie - it's got too many jaw-dropping scenes of sheer madness and I'd say an abrupt ending. IMO, the film creator did not mean for it to be a serious drama. As a parody of art house/horror/erotica, it is funny and certainly original. Have a good laugh and try not to look for some deep meaning. This story of the curious Beauties and the lustful Beasts certainly is not recommended for co-viewing with the children. The opening scene that may shock an unprepared viewer much more than the infamous scene of bestiality can be successfully used On Discovery channel for the program like 'In the world of animals - mating habits and rituals of horses'.


I really enjoyed The Patriot. This movie had less violence and was based on a real life threat that could inevitably destroy our civilization. One line in the movie from wesley mclaren (seagal) stuck out in my mind to be very true of our society, 'western medicine is in the practice of prolonging illness and I am in the business of curing it.'


This should be re-named 'Everybody Loves Sebastian'. The 1983 rural go-nowhere town high school junior (or senior? - they seemed to flip flop on that one) with weird hair and 'Leo-like' good looks has a big plate full of issues. His step-dad announces definite plans to have a sex-change operation, upon which his mom calls the marriage quits; Sebastian is called the 'f' word by everyone and their mother, all-the-while 'kissing around' with various girls, getting high on Ready-Whip at a supermarket, and saving a 'strawberry' prostitute from the clutches of her ruthless pimp.

Sebastian's 'buddies' make Eddie Haskal look like a choir boy; bad association doesn't get much worse. Sebastian seems to go for 'Harold's' suicide attempts record (although he won't admit suicidal tendanccies). For no apparent reason the genius level SAT scoring Sebastian MUST graduate a year early, although he has no clue about the future, nor does he want to attend college (what gives with this nonsense?).

This film is a look into a few weeks in the life of someone who is PRETTY MESSED UP. The final scene suggests that things will be alright, although the HOW is left entirely up to the viewer.

The makers of this film seem to bank solely on the undisputed appeal of the very attractive male lead. The 'story' leaves a lot to be desired. Looking for 'what will this gorgeous kid do next...?' doesn't exactly satisfy. The lackluster production values just don't measure up to other films, independent or otherwise. A low budget and weak story need more than a pretty face to carry it through. The 'results' of this project are forgettable and an insult to intelligent cinema fans.


It is hard to put the devastating beauty of Traffik to words, partly because I am still grasping to comprehend it myself, several hours after my second viewing. First, it must be said that Traffik contains some of the most incomparably and unforgettably haunting scenes I have seen in a film or television production. The acting is excellent, particularly that of Bill Paterson as a British minister grappling with his heroin-addicted daughter and an aid deal to Pakistan that hinges on drug issues. Another plot line describes these drug issues at a ground level in Pakistan, and revolves around a struggling opium poppy farmer and his interaction with a successful heroin smuggler. The third main storyline involves the prosecution of a Hamburg drug importer, and the conflicting efforts of his wife and two German detectives while he is under trial. It is a profound accomplishment that the interaction between these stories feels natural, transcending the forced plot entanglement often found in Hollywood movies. It is an even greater accomplishment that a work spread over three countries and half a dozen main characters can be so focused and enthralling, without having to oversimplify. It is devastating--bleak and brutal but never apathetic. In short, Traffik is a rare work of film that handles challenging subjects with unmatched compassion and clarity.


As a young black/latina woman I am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. Of course when I saw this movie at the video store I thought I would enjoy it; unfortunately, I didn't. Although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant, the story was simply not properly developed. The movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. Had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes, perhaps I would have enjoyed it a bit more. Honestly, I would recommend a film like 'Raising Victor' over this one any day. I just was not too impressed.


This movie is about a young scientist who creates a serum that re-animates the dead. He first uses it on his brother when he is shot dead in a drive by. His brother then infects the other gang members.In some scenes the zombies are seen walking very slowly and in other scenes they run pretty fast which makes little sense. The acting is mediocre but the story doesn't help the film. The makeup consists of blood on the face of the zombies. The budget for this film I'm sure was very limited. I believe the film could have been better made had the story been more original and with a better budget. If you wan't to see a good zombie flick don't see this one.


Wolfgang Peterson directs this thriller that has Clint Eastwood playing Secrect Service Agent Frank Horrigan, who matches wits with a clever psycho(John Malkovich) in a cat-and-mouse game involving the the protection of the President. Mitch Leary(Malkovich)keeps in touch with Horrigan teasing the agent with discouraging remarks about his abilities, as well as the Secret Service's protection of the presidents in the past. Agent Lilly Raines(Rene Russo)tries to keep Horrigan grounded; but he is head strong in stopping Leary from carrying out his threats of assassination. Very good FX and fast pace sustains the plot. Eastwood and Malkovich are superb. Russo has a way of getting your attention. Rounding out this strong cast are: Dylan McDermott, Fred Dalton Thompson, John Mahoney and Gary Cole.


This is one of my favorite family movies. Loved it when I was little and it still holds up with me now that I'm older. I still laugh at all the same old jokes and might even shed a tear a times. I never have much cared for animals talking, or at least UN-animated ones but this one I'll stand up for. It's a pretty old movie but it will always hold a place in my heart.

There aren't any other live animal movies that I can think of at the moment that I even could compare with, let alone like as much as this one. I might be giving too much praise to this movie but I don't think show. I really holds that great message that' Home is where the heart is.' Or at least that's the message I gained from it. Definitely recommended for a good old family movie night.


I loved this movie, I saw it when I was about 8 years old and almost seven years later, this evening I got to see it again. I really thought it had an interesting idea, they only thing that upset me was the ending which I felt was a cop out. 'Round here it's hard to find this movie and I was lucky enough to have seen it on BRAVO. I also expected to see more Drew Barrymore in here too!


Four years after making his directorial debut with the art-house snoozer 'Welcome To L.A.', Alan Rudolph shows us what he really wanted from Hollywood was to be one of the guys. 'Roadie' is a frat-boy fracas complete with barroom brawls, horny harpies, Art Carney in a souped-up wheelchair...and Meat Loaf at the wheel. Meat Loaf (playing Travis W. Redfish!) is actually a rather charming presence on the screen, and perhaps in a smaller role (in a better movie) he might indeed be ingratiating, but Zalman King's script is full of stereotypical redneck humor and helpless Meat Loaf is kept wide-eyed and moronic. Alice Cooper, Roy Orbison, Hank Williams, Jr., and Blondie all make appearances--and all look embarrassed. They certainly should, 'Roadie' is one bad trip. NO STARS from ****


First off, this movie is not near complete, my guess is that someone actually bothered to steal every other page of the script.

The movie contains bizarre time-travels without notice, inconsistent dialogs, misplaced details all over, the music isn't very bad at all, other then misplaced tracks, and besides the fact that the volume goes up and down between the different tracks. The cutting-room did a descent job actually, and that says a lot. Missplaced sound effects ruin the tension, though.

Luke Perry does what he does best, just looking worried, and occasionally coughing up punchlines from hell.

I seriously rate this movie as the worst of 2007, and i've seen a few bad ones. Do not spend money on this one, it's not so bad it's a laugh, it's worse. Ratings above 1 star, should render a blacklist at IMDb, because it's a damn lie.


All right guys, here's the deal with this movie. it's not the best but for all of you 80s kids out there it'll bring back fond memories of your childhood. Personally, i love this movie. i still love rainbow brite and the care bears. so, in my opinion, if you aren't a kid now or were a kid that loved and/or loves rainbow brite you won't like this movie at all.


Summary: Not worth the film

As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the 'Scarlett' miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an 'arrangement' with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's 'roots that go deep,' and is eventually named 'The O'Hara,' the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd 'night-on-white-horse' - type of a rescue. The 'Scarlett' miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.

I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.


Surface was awesome, I don't know how many Mondays I survived at school just by thinking about the new episode of surface. I loved it, sometimes I had to call home and tell my mom to tape it for me. I was pretty upset when I heard it was cancelled, I mean jeez way to let us hang. So,they can have their new Tina fay comedy(you couldn't pay me to watch that, I think seeing the commercials made me dumber). I'm gonna miss my Monday night fix of Surface, even if my sister did make fun of me. although,kidnapped does look good and, they still have L&O: SVU (i think, i still have to check) (i only wrote the 2 lines above, because they said i needed ten lines).


I ended up watching this movie before even going through any of the reviews, on the request of a female. Just out of curiosity, I thought, let me find out if there are people who actually recommend others to watch this movie. I am quite shocked to find such long and positive reviews on this website that makes me conclude that it's a scam.

As far as my opinion goes, I have to ask,'are these filmmakers retarded or do they assume that the viewers are retarded?' The movie is atrocious on so many levels and I'm not even talking about the story or presentation.

So, these bunch of guys plus one girl (the lead actress) form a Music band; guessing from the constant presence of guitars it is supposed to be a ROCK band. Hell, when did dancers started becoming the part of a Rock band??? Anyway, let me accept it as the-Bollywood-version-of-a- Rock-band, but amusingly enough all the scores which actually had these two guitarists doing all kinds of cool 'ROCK GESTURES' and I am assuming they were playing the instruments, the sound of the guitar was completely missing!!! I simply can't comprehend the magnitude of stupidity here....

I am just going to conclude here because it is absolutely not worth pointing out any further flaws in the movie. Bollywood directors seem to have no shame anymore!!!!!!!!


This movie is at times a wild 80s college sex comedy, others a sweet romantic one... Then it has moments of serious drama and then sprinkles in dashes of science fiction... It is so uneven its almost ridiculous.

But I would hardly rank it as one of the worst films I've ever seen except of course for the fact that they casted Peter O'Toole.

There is absolutely nothing for him to work with here. Poor dialog, poor performances to work off of, poor everything... And yet he's fantastic... There is not one good thing about his part and yet he makes it work if only on pure charm alone.

The fact that he was so able to achieve so much with so little shines a spotlight on how greatly everyone else in this film failed, making it seem even worse than I suppose it actually is...

If any other actor was in O'Toole's role, I would have forgotten this movie as crap and never thought of it again, but a fine performance by Peter O'Toole despite all odds ensures that I'll remember this film for a long time to come... If only as a film that, maybe, could have been good if anyone involved in it was nearly half as good as Peter O'Toole.


This is not horror, as the first part was: This is ('campy') light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela 'Bruce's sister' Springsteen.

This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly 'pathological' ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some 'methods' used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.


Having read Diamond's book, I was slightly disappointed in the series, but all in all, it is quite informative. Reading the other comments, it is comforting to know that the 'culture warriors' are hard at work, seeing 'attacks' on 'Western Civilization' under every rug.

Is Diamond a little preachy ? Sure. Like a lot of academics, he sees his theory as the most important thing ever. He uses the phrase 'guns, germs, and steel' at seemingly every opportunity during the series. We get it, after about the first 10 minutes.

Is Diamond a little simplistic (in the series) ? Sure. The part about the Spaniards in South America is particularly amusing, condensing some very long, complicated history down to 'smallpox, swords, and horses', wrapping up the whole conquest of South America in about 15 minutes. But the point remains valid - these things did in fact contribute (but not totally define) the reasons for the Spaniard's success against the established cultures.

Is he preaching *against* Western Civilization in any way ? Nope. Not a word. Not to my ear. All he says is that luck played a large part in determining which cultures advanced more quickly, *not* that luck is the only reason.

In the end, if you're looking for something that validates your own sense of superiority, then this series is not for you. But if you are interested in all of the factors than influence how societies succeed or fail, this series presents a useful interpretation of the historical evidence.


The TV guide calls this movie a mystery. What is a mystery to me is how is it possible that a culture that can produce such intricate and complex classical music and brilliant mathematicians cannot produce a single film that would rise above the despicable trash level this film so perfectly represents. This is Bollywood at its best/worst, I honestly cannot tell the difference. Nauseatingly sweet, kitschy clichés on every level, story-line, situations, dialog, music and choreography. To put it bluntly, you must be a retard to enjoy it. I watched it to satisfy my cultural curiosity, but there were times when I had to walk away from it, because I could not take it any more. The only redeeming quality of the movie is the exquisite beauty of the leading actresses.


SPOILERS

Tom and Jerry is a classic cartoon, with a flawless idea, and almost every single short is a gem. While I must say that this is definitely an inferior short compared such other classic Tom and Jerry shorts, there is not way you can hate this cartoon. Sure, it is understandable to say that this is one of the worst of the first Tom and Jerry episodes, and I can say that I agree, but the fact of the matter is that all Tom and Jerry episodes are great, but some are just better than others. Well, this would fit into 'others.'

Here is the plot of Fraidy Cat. Tom is listening to an old scary radio broadcast, and becomes easily frightened. Jerry observes how scared he is, and tries to scare him even more than he already is. He creates scary dilemmas for Tom, and Tom becomes scared out of his wits, and his lives. Jerry then puts a sheet over a vacuum cleaner and controls it, thus making it look like the vacuum is a ghost. Tom finds out that Jerry did all of this, and chases him. Tom then accidentally bites the house maid. However, at the end Jerry ends up the one becoming scared after he sees his reflection in a flour cup.

Overall, this is far from the best Tom and Jerry short out there, but this is still a fun and entertaining piece of time. It makes me wish that there was more cartoons like this. The slapstick and gags in this that make Tom and Jerry famous are as good as ever in this short, but it felt like something was missing in this. It felt slower than most Tom and Jerry shorts. Anyway, this is a good short that does not quite live up to some other Tom and Jerry cartoons, but it is still nice.

7/10


You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003.


Never mind the serious logic gaps, never mind the achingly cliche character portrayals, never mind the haphazard writing, and you might like this movie. The main character Alyssa was supposed to be endearing, the heroine who you root for to be saved,(or in this case, save herself) But instead she merely grates, and makes one wonder, are all pro ballerinas really that stupid? Her busybody mother was obviously only necessary to further propagate the illusion that ballet companies are evil monsters ready to snatch your poor, innocent, young girl from your grasp, with an ever present, biting artistic director/villain. And the cliche's! Not only does she become anorexic, bulemic, an over the counter junkie, and a pathological liar, but all in the course of a few months. It's like the writer read every horror story he could dig up about ballet and decided to see how much he could cram into two hours, (with commercials).

Believe it or not, but I am a dancer. This 'uprising' or 'resurgence' of anorexia and bulemia that is happening is nonexistent at all of the dance schools I have attended. In fact, the teachers are so scared to even suggest that a girl might stand a better chance a few pounds lighter, most of the dancers in my classes would be actually considered minorly overweight. I'm not saying eating disorders never occur, but not to the extent as it was portrayed in the movie.

Another annoying problem this movie had was the means-to-an-end writing style. Her on again off again boyfriend probably had all of half an hour total screen time, all in the first half. The other supporting characters were merely props, decorations to further the story. Given the right dialogue, this would have been a very intricate mind study of a psycological problem. As it is, it turns into a one woman show, and Kimberly McCullough doesn't have the chutzpah to pull it off.

To a non dancer, this movie would be a supposed 'insight' into what really goes one behind closed doors at a ballet company. To a dancer, this is a very insulting movie, which portrays ballerinas as stupid and parents as pushy and ill informed. Those adjectives more correctly describe the people who got this on the air in the first place. 3/10


James Cagney, racketeer and political ward heeler, get to become a Deputy Commissioner of Corrections and visits a boys reform school. The catch is that Cagney is not in it for the graft, he genuinely wants to make a difference in the lives of the kids there because he comes from a background like their's.

The villain of the piece is Dudley Digges who is a grafting chiseler and a sanctimonious hypocrite to boot. One of the subtexts of the plot of The Mayor of Hell is that these kids are mostly immigrants and those that judge them and are in positions of power are those who are here a few generations. Note in the mess hall scene as Digges offers a prayer of thanks for the food they are about to receive, Digges is eating well, but the kids are getting quality you wouldn't feed to your pet.

Cagney has his own troubles back in the city with some of his henchmen and he has to take it on the lam. That puts Digges back in charge and setting up the film for it's climax.

The Mayor of Hell was a typical product from the working class studio. And because it was pre-Code it gets pretty gruesome at times. A later version of this, Crime School, with Humphrey Bogart and the Dead End Kids, was a more sanitized remake.

Although Cagney is fine in the lead role as is Madge Evans the school nurse, the acting honors go to Dudley Digges. Hard to believe that the same man could portray the drunken, but kindly, one legged ship's surgeon in Mutiny on the Bounty. But Digges is a fine player and a joy to watch in every film he's in.

This film is not shown to often because of the racial and ethnic stereotypes it portrays. A whole lot of minorities would be offended today. Still it's a fine film.

Interestingly enough a few years ago the film Sleepers came out and it touched on some of the same issues. I guess films about reform schools don't change in any time.


See No Evil With Kane. The Movie Has a great storyline But it just wasn't a Hide my eye's, Scream Out Loud Horror Flick I thought it was going to be from watching the WWE Superstars on Monday Night Raw When The Movie First Came To Theaters. I Did ENJOY The Movie Though I Loved The Story It Played Out.

GREAT MOVIE EXCELLENT WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PART 2

It Doesn't Matter If Kane Gets Killed At The End

Or Not They Have Killed Off Other Horror Stars In Every Movie

They Have Out And They Still Comeback For More So a part 2 would

Be Very Interesting.