This is one of those topics I can relate to a little more than most people as I hate noise & have no idea how those in big cities, New York especially how people get any sleep at all! It astounds me that people can stand all the noise out there these days. The basic plot of the film is that it makes for an interesting topic. It's too bad that's about it. Tim Robbbins is decent although except for a couple of scenes (especially with the absolute supermodel looking Margarita Leiveva) he didn't seem to really be altogether there. My biggest hope for this film is that casting agents will see the absolutely stunning & talented actress to boot, Margarita Levieva. She doesn't have a lot to do, but she is supermodel beautiful. Even when they are trying to make her look at more girl next door. It makes me sad that there can be people such as Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashian in the world w/no redeemable skills or talent, to have more fame and success than this talented beauty. I didn't care for much of this film because the script isn't very good, but am glad I got to see some new talent. I hope that producers & directors think about Margarita when they need a beautiful new actress to be in there big budget film. If they can make Megan Fox a star (c'mon she isn't that hot, & her acting 'talent' is worse than made-for Disney channel TV shows) from 1 film, it should happen easily for her, as she is gorgeous & has talent! I'd recommend her changing her last name so we can pronounce it and make it more marketable. Here's hoping this makes her career, & if there is any justice she can pop up on some big summer movie or two in the next couple years.


The opening scene of this movie is pretty incredible. I've seen a number of sci-fi movies with great special effects but my roommate and I looked at each other after the opening sequence and he said plainly, 'sensory overload.' The plot of the movie is pretty simple but the nice thing about this sci-fi movie is that it lets the audience figure out most of the technology for themselves instead of wasting time to 'subtly' explain it. The creatures in this movie are also very interesting. You don't get a really good look at them until about two thirds of the way through. Overall, a very entertaining movie.


This film about secret government mind experiments and the corrupt use of the citizenry by secretive and vile shadowy figures had the potential for being a really interesting movie. But for me, it failed. I won't elaborate much on the rather confusing plot line, but if you are looking for a detailed explanation, the comment by user 'reluctantpopstar' gives a good description of it.

But it didn't work for me. I found it slow, which would be okay but for the fact that it seemed to go nowhere. The viewer is left in the dark about too many things to really be able to get a handle on this movie-in some films, one can argue that the filmmakers intended to provoke thought and left things ambiguous for that reason. I don't think that this is the case here.

As for the frequent long shots of two buildings that have been frequently mentioned by other users...I see that they do have a point-they give the viewer time to get another drink without missing any of the 'action'. And I suspect many viewers would welcome the opportunity to have several beverages on board to get through this one.


I just saw this Movie on a local TV Station (TV8's 'Big Chuck and Little John' in Cleveland, Ohio) I had never heard of this movie and decided to watch it.

I know of no thesaurus that can even come close to aiding me in describing how bad this movie really is. The script is awful. The acting, well other than one of two exceptions, is pointless since there is nothing in this material that merits any real effort.

It looks like a bunch of little ideas, leftover from various writing sessions, that where thrown into a blender. It's not just funny. The 'parody' aspect is strained at best. Some references where almost out of date (even for the time of it's release). No wonder I had never heard of it, it's really bad, worse than anything Saturday Night Live, MAD TV or even In Living color put out in their worst days.

If you see it on TV, it is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. Whatever you do DON'T WASTE A CENT.

Adam


'That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?' I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...

Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.

Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that 'Tucker' has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of 'burning off' the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience.

Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.

GRADE: C-


Featuring some amazing and wonderful characters, a new mythology, superbly designed and executed sets, Nightbreed is a great film.

Sadly the lack of a well known lead actor lead to the film finding obscurity.

Perhaps also the homosexuality of the director lead to the film being unwittingly censored by the white audience the film decries.

None the less the film is a treasure of the monster movie/superhero genre.

A sequel featuring Highlander style flashbacks to different epochs in history would be interesting.

Another idea would be the foundation of the new Midian. Perhaps in Texas somewhere or the swamps of Lousiana with crocodile men and a traveling freak circus.


'The Muppets Take Manhattan' is different in a lot of ways to every other Muppet Movie made so far. For one, it remains the only Muppet film not owned by Disney. As of 2008, the film still belongs to 20th Century Fox (CBS Fox at the time of its release) even though Disney owns the rights to the Muppets. Also, this film has a story line that's very non-linear, and events that are otherwise unpredictable.

Of course, it's very hard to beat the original 'Muppet Movie' from 1979, especially since that movie had more memorable songs than 'Manhattan' does. However, one way in which 'The Muppets Take Manhattan' is better than 'The Muppet Movie' is perhaps the surprisingly realistic scenarios. In the first movie, all the Muppets really have to do is go to Hollywood, walk into an agent's office, and they are immediately given a 'Rich & Famous' contract. In this movie, the Muppets learn that they actually have to work for their desired success, and it's a lot harder to do that, especially in the entertainment business, than they initially thought. That's an important and often times overlooked message, provided one is willing to suspend the disbelief that the Muppets, being small and made of cloth, don't necessarily have to live in a spacious place or even eat respectively. Above all, their struggle to make it after graduating college creates a very good story. Another note: The celebrity cameos in the movie were cool, and they surprisingly managed not to take away the spotlight from the Muppets. That ability right there is a testament to Henson, and how appealing the Muppet characters were even to adults.

Where 'Manhattan' falls flat, and this is where I'm sure people will disagree with me, is with some of the key songs, especially in the end. I thought the wedding song 'He'll Make Me Happy' was too somber for such a happy occasion as a wedding. It sounded more like a song that's played at a funeral. Every time I watch this movie, hearing that song makes me unusually depressed, especially when the film begins on such an upbeat number as 'Together Again' and ends happily for that matter. 'Saying Goodbye' was a sad number too, but it fit better into the movie because the Muppets were disbanding and weren't sure they were going to see each other again. That last song was such a let down, and perhaps even added to younger viewers' misery of seeing their favorite Muppets leave the big screen.

'The Muppets Take Manhattan' is overall a good film, and one that marches to the beat of a different drum than the other Muppet films, including the newer ones made after the deaths of Jim Henson and Richard Hunt. Fortunately, the film marches in the same direction as well. I just wished the film ended on a better song that wasn't quite so melancholy. Plus, Disney should have gotten its hands on this film's copyright and given it a proper DVD release. Maybe it will someday. We'll see.


I have recently watched this film, and have decided to comment on it.

the best way to watch this film is to not expect what you have seen in the past by Miyazaki. Miyazaki is well known for his work on on Spirited away and Howl's moving castle. well for western viewers anyway. both of them films were kind of similar to each other but at the same time completely different. However Ponyo is a whole different type of story and animation all together.

The story follows 'Ponyo' a fish that has the face a girl. After Ponyo runs away from her home at the bottom of the sea, she find a whole new world she never knew was out there, and new trouble as well, when she almost caught by a fishing boat, she was rescued by a five year old boy known as Sousuke.

the story then follows the two of them and the pure friendship between a boy and a fish. can Ponyo really stay with Sousuke forever ?

I feel the movie was inspired by 'The little mermaid' and at the same time similar to 'Tonari no Totoro'

the movie is very short and you have very little time to learn about the characters in this movie. But the Characters a fish and a little boy so how much are you expecting to learn about them? the film is set over about what seems to be 3 days, I think this is why the movie is so short.

I really enjoyed watching this movie and I hope you all enjoy this movie as well


Timeless musical gem, with Gene Kelly in top form, stylish direction by Vincente Minnelli, and wonderful musical numbers. It is great entertainment from start to finish, one of those films that people watch with a smile and say 'they don't make 'em like they used to!' But they never did quite make them like this. The climactic 25 minute musical sequence without any dialogue is among the most beautiful in film history. Movie magic, clearly derived from the heart and soul of everyone involved. A must see!


How LIVING THE DREAM managed to get into the Laemmle 5 in West Hollywood is beyond me, as it is the worst film I have ever seen in my life. I should have known when the first scene opened in-gasp, Eugene, Oregon-,that this dud of a film with characters that you want to like and feel sorry for from their exclusion days from high school,but can't, as they are such losers, is so wooden and atrocious with dialog that is beyond bad.

Then, cliché, the three high school losers end up in LA, and here is where the film could have been realistic if it had shown them trying to find a career in acting. But no, one works as a used car salesman, the other is a true loser in a garage call center selling magazines. Even the bastard that runs the place has more audience appeal than that dreadful actor with the horrible foreign accent. And, they fraudulently get money from an insurance scam to set up an Executive Recruitment firm with no experience, just showing 'the supposed good life' in LA night spots with a cast of actors that are so wooden and bad, they better not have SAG cards...

I could go on and on about this bad film, but I ended up walking out of the theater, which had at the start six people, and when I left four men were the only ones in the audience. I wanted to like this film, but I couldn't find one merit in the story, characters, writing, dialog, nor the actors. Whoever cast this film should retire. Amen...enough...


Frankly I'm amazed to see that this movie is getting relatively good reviews. I'll be completely honest and say that the only reason I even got through it is because of Ryan Phillippe, and not for reasons particularly connected with his abilities as an actor, though I think over the last years he has proved himself to be a better actor than his first major roles in the late 1990's indicated.

As far as action/suspense movies go, this movie fails in nearly every respect. The acting is OK, I guess, but the script is absolutely horrible and makes very little sense, a fact which the filmmakers try to cover up by adding absurd references to Chaos theory, as if it would convince anyone that the film is actually 'clever' - but then again, judging from other reviews, some were. Don't be fooled: the script is a boring, derivative mess and no other element of the movie makes up for it. Wesley Snipes has probably never had a less interesting role in a film, and Statham is a thoroughly dull actor.

Not recommended.


I was fortunate enough to meet George Pal (and still have my DS:TMOB poster autographed by him) at a convention shortly after the release, and asked him why he chose to do the film 'camp'. Before he could answer, two studio flacks intercepted and lectured me on how the studio 'knew best' and how 'no one will take such a film seriously'. I had been reading the Bantam reprints for a couple of years thanks to a friend (ComiCon attendees of the 1970s will recall Blackhawk and his band? I was in a couple of years of that with him), and had higher hopes than what we got.

The flacks insisted that no high adventure would ever be done seriously, and so doing 'camp' was the only way. Several other fans jumped in on my side, with Pal listening as best he could. At the end of the little event, Pal came up to us and apologized, wishing he could have done more and better.

STAR WARS put the lie to the flacks, and a year after Pal's death, Spielberg and Lucas proved that Doc Savage could have easily been the next major movie franchise...if it hadn't been for the flacks.

Tear out the memory or history of Doc, and the film would have been worth a 6/10 rating as nothing more than a mindless popcorn seller.

But destroying the legacy like that was no less an abomination than killing a baby in the crib.

Doc Savage can still come to the screen, and survive the inevitable comparisons by the ill-informed to Indiana Jones, but it would have to be done in all seriousness and earnest to reclaim the glory that we should expect from the First American Superhero.

SIDENOTES: Yes, there was a second script for ARCHENEMY OF EVIL, and it's a lot more serious. Yes, there was simultaneous footage shot, but mostly establishing shots and very little with actors. And, yes, there _is_ a one-sheet of Ron Ely leaping over a brick wall and blasting at something over his shoulder with a specially built bronze pistol. Ely's wearing a duster over a button down white shirt with a bronze tie, and the words 'DOC SAVAGE: ARCHENEMY OF EVIL...Coming Next Summer!' POSTSCRIPT: If anyone knows who the studio flacks were that accompanied George Pal in 1975 to San Diego for the convention, smack the idiots up the side of the head and call them the idiots that they are. At the time, they were doing dorkknobs and Fu Manchu in stripes and baggy canvas pants, and carrying Paramount portfolios.


Yes, I know that this movie is meant as a comedy! And the humor is over the top! But the theme about people getting less intelligent in future time might not be so far fetched! I cannot say that it will happen,but if we don't take proper care of our educational system than this could be a possibility! I have noticed that some schools aren't teaching facts anymore! (Like history,geography,basic stuff). The focus is more on learning practical abilities! The theory behind most subjects may be boring but is essential in understanding how things work! In the movie there is this ridiculous example of people growing crops with Gatorade in stead of water! Well,we can laugh about it! But if you never been taught that water contains minerals necessary for plants to grow so how would you know! To me this is a scary notion! So now you understand why this subject isn't funny anymore! It could be that Mike Judge is making fun but at the same time is warning people for a real disaster if education doesn't improve fast! Am I taking this movie too seriously! Yes of course! To each his own fun! I loved Mike Judge's work (Beavis and Butthead and Office space)! In these he was able to be critical and funny at the same time! In 'Idiocracy' I missed this! Most of the events are too absurd and as I said earlier very scary! I do think if you are in the mood you will like this movie!


I saw the movie and really could not stop my tears. Its tragedy that India has no such leaders after freedom, who dare to do justice with their own children, when they don't behave properly.. In current generation, politicians bring their children's into politics without measuring their caliber and skills.. I remember the dialogue from Gandhi 'What kind of society we want to create/make with such people (about Harilal)?' No wonder that it will be a dream that India will hardly have such leader in this or next generation.. Einstein was right when he said about Gandhi that 'After 50 years one would hardly believe that such person with body, soul and mind (Mahatma Gandhi) had ever lived on this earth.' I sincerely want to THANKS a LOT to Anil kapoor, Feroze khan and all film actors/actresses for this wonderful movie about great person and relationship with his son. All father and son should watch this movie once and take some lessons for both roles.


Clint Eastwood has definitely produced better movies than this, but this one does not embarrass him. Dirty Harry catches everyone's attention and unless one wants to watch romance, there is no reason why you won't like him. He is cool because he is dirty, is great because he kills without much thinking, is perfect because he gets the bullet right through your heart and a hero because he doesn't care.

From what I have seen in movies in which Eastwood acts, the character of the lead role always captivates the audience. In White Hunter Black heart, he is the crazy director, in 'in the Line of Fire' he is the 'Old 'un' while here is the 'almost' jobless with his job, that is to say he makes work for himself, doesn't care one damn about his superiors who practically send him out for a vacation.

Based on a rape victim, this movie is promising for all the 'no non-sense' movie watchers. The movie has nothing that goes away from he central plot. However, what makes it slightly inferior to the better movies of Eastwood is that though the character of the lead role is captivating the plot is not, as it is far too obvious from the beginning. It is not a movie that is going to make you sit at a place without moving. Also, there are too many people far dirtier than Dirty harry.


Watching ALIEN EXPRESS inspired feelings of awe, shock, pity and, yes, sheer terror. To think that actors who have done good work in the past should come to something like this. The horror, the horror.

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar.

A train especially built for a political campaign is on it's way to Las Vegas for a big rally for the candidate, a Senator from Texas (Barry Corbin, the only actor with roles both ALIEN EXPRESS and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN in the same decade). At a railroad crossing in Utah a meteor incinerates a car waiting for the train to pass.

The train stops. Local law enforcement is summoned. Oh, can it be? The Senator has a lovely young lady (Amy Locane from CRY-BABY and MELROSE PLACE) who just happened to have once been married to one of the officers answering the 911 call. Lou Diamond Phillips (STAND AND DELIVER, LA BAMBA) is the ex-husband.

Meanwhile eeeeevil aliens have managed to stow away on the train.

The train leaves. Lou gets his buddy to pilot a helicopter so that Lou can drop onto the moving train (about 70 miles per hour) so that he can save the day. As the buddy's reward, he crashes the helicopter into the mountain.

Which is another example of how poorly written ALIEN EXPRESS is. The cop hero's sidekick must die, we all know that. But he's supposed to die near the end of the third act, usually while saving several lives.

Once on the train, Lou manages to lose his shirt so that he can channel Bruce Willis in DIE HARD by wearing a wife beater t-shirt. Yeah, Lou is 46 years old but he hits the gym. The part he's playing isn't worth bothering with, but he's in good shape.

The Senator is going to have an afternoon delight with Miss Utah, but aliens intercede and both he and the woman young enough to be his granddaughter pay the ultimate price.

Soon we have bomb threats, multiplying aliens, and of course the train goes out of control and speeds toward its date with destiny while Lou and Todd Bridges (DIFF'RENT STROKES) try to save as many lives as they can.

There is exactly one surprise in the entire movie. Early in the story a couple lift wine glasses to their thirty-fifth anniversary, with hopes for thirty-five more years together. The dude gets banged up, but he and the Mrs. both live. Maybe the writers just lost track of them.

This is the kind of movie that you'd love to be a fly on the wall. These actors who have done better work (and, really, deserve much better than this) are probably just happy for the work. Did they actually think they were working on something worthwhile, or did they cry (and/or drink) themselves to sleep at night? At the end of the story the (fairly numerous, all things considered) survivors gather in the last car of the train, which is unhooked. The other cars go over a cliff but the one containing the protagonists stops just inches short of the cliff.

Lou and his ex are reunited. Happiness reigns. I'd have thought that the first thing they'd do was get off the train so they'd have solid ground under their feet, but I digress.

Someone looks out the window and sees a shooting star. Look, make a wish. Then another. Then more and more. The Earth is being bombarded with meteors that will crack open and creepy crawly hand puppets with big teeth will be everywhere.

It's gotten to a point that seeing the words 'The Sci-Fi Channel Presents' on an 'original' movie tells us that we'll be glad we have Ti-Vo so that we can fast forward through the next two hours. Or, better yet, just go ahead and erase it two minutes into the story and spend that time more wisely.


Crossing the Bridge: the Sound of Istanbul received one of the most rapturous applause from the audience when it ended and very deservingly so. I did not expect too much from a musical documentary but the movie proved to be much more than that. It was also a visual documentary of Istanbul with stark contrasts of old and new, western and eastern, poor and rich, modern and traditional. Black and white photographs of old Istanbul by world famous Armenian photographer Ara Guler were exceptional. But of course main theme was music, and by God, what a variety of it! It was in a way similar to Bueno Vistas Social Club; the love and the respect of the interviewer -Alexander Hacke here replacing Ray Cooder- for the musicians exuded from the screen and engulfed us all. The music was mostly very interesting. The jazz session by a group of Romany gypsies in a small Western Turkish town was mind blowing. I will not be surprised if the travel agents start getting group booking requests for Kesan after the movie is released. But I most loved Muzeyyen Senar who looked amazingly elegant in a sort of burlesque way and whilst tipping her 'Raki' declared courageously: 'My voice and I are 86 years old!' Well done Faith Akin. I bet there are many more Turkish musicians who are feeling left out: Go for Volume II please.


Italian rip off of Mandingo and The Drum is a badly dubbed Italian life on the plantation yarn. Lots of people who don't look like they belong in the American South wear badly tailored costumes and wander around locations that look nothing like the American south. The plot has something about the romance between a rich man and a certain young woman, the jealousy that ensues and the tragedy that follows. The film promises hot steamy sex and lots of twisted violence but nothing ever really comes of any of it, its all tease. Its all probably racially insensitive, I couldn't notice since its artistically bankrupt. The final twist is at best laughable. A major turkey.


What? Is Jamie Foxx supposed to be funny?Does he really believe he is funny?Well, it's funny watching his confidence in being funny.The man has no identity whatsoever...I mean you can immediately see who his idols are, Denzel Washington and Martin Lawrence, because he tries really hard to imitate them in most of his movies.The only problem is that he does it bad, uneven, and what comes out are some parts where he somewhat looks like Denzel, with that macho-s**t attitude and then abruptly goes to being Martin Lawrence, the funny and clumsy-silly comic. There's no personal touch to all that, I mean he contributes nothing to the personality he tries to sell, and I'm sure he has nothing to say personally. He really is Mr. Dull-boy in person.

I was really hoping Hollywood, and the black community in America would find somebody better to launch into super stardom, like Don Cheadle for example, but perhaps the pathetic Jamie better represents the generation that remixes the old.


This movie has bad writing and bad editing. It is difficult to follow what is going on because nothing any of the characters do makes much sense. Some major calamity occurs every 30 seconds. As a result, none of the 'action' sequences are at all interesting. The movie is two hours worth of 'throw away' scenes which are connected merely by the fact that they share common actors. This movie doesn't even have enough of a sense of humor to be a good 'bad' movie.


Sui generis. Folks, I'm not going to lie to you; Merhige is a one or two hit wonder, but what a film (it almost excuses SUSPECT ZERO). I'm also not going to pretend to understand it completely; half of what makes it what it is is trying to second guess what the hell they are doing on the screen because of the chiaroscuro.

Richard Corliss says, 'It is as if a druidical cult had re-enacted, for real, three Bible stories -- creation, the Nativity and Jesus' torture and death on Golgotha.' That's not a bad description, but there seems to be more to it than the seemingly one-to-one religious correspondences.

There's an environmental theme right up near the surface -- note that toward the end (after the barrenness of the landscape) there are large pipes not unlike those on a construction site. Oh no, he's going to say look at how people are raping mother nature. One rarely sees a dead metaphor in action, and with this much hyperbole, but to see it acted out is way grislier than language implies.

And yeah, if you just want something to sync with a death metal soundtrack, it does have the requisite atrocities. But as for myself and others like me, it's an important art film that should merit a Criterion collection release. Ranks right up there with Murnau's FAUST.

~ Ray


In THE FAN Robert De Niro plays Gil Renard . Or is it Travis Bickle ? or Rupert Pupkin ? Or Max Cady ? You see the problem with this type of role is that De Niro has played very very similar characters in TAXI DRIVER , THE KING OF COMEDY and CAPE FEAR and unfortunately the characters were better developed and had better scripts . I found it slightly difficult to believe that Renard would have started out as a frustrated obsessive sports fan into being an out and out psycho

The character arc isn't the only problem with this script - It also lacks a character focus ( A problem I had with THE UNTOUCHABLES where De Niro should have been superb but ended up slightly flat ) , for several stretches of the movie I kept thinking that Bobby Rayburn was the main character then the story switches back to Renard . It also seems to have disappointed a lot of sports fans who seem to think this should have concentrated a bit more on baseball . I'm not sure if this was meant to appeal to baseball fans originally but again there are elements which hint it might have if the producers had made up their minds has to who and what the story should focus upon

I will admit I was entertained by THE FAN ( Especially by the soundtrack ) but it is a very flawed film and it should be remembered that by the mid 1990s characters being stalked by nutters as in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE , UNLAWFUL ENTRY etc had run out of steam a long time ago


i think it is great one of my favourite films as a kid and who said there songs were unforgettable they were mint i can still remember them now WORD FOR WORD the film remains a favourite with my family and my younger cousins are now addicted to it too they even know the songs this film is great and a enjoyable film for kids it has a moral lesson so don't say its not good because it shows how lying gets you nowhere ill leave with a parting comment: this film is amazing love me xxx P.s i would like the soundtrack but i cant and yes the animation is good the jokes are humorous and the action never stops.This film will go down in children's film history and in my opinion one of the only remaining safe films to show children.


The story has little to do with Jack London's original novel. I thought the acting was very unnatural, the dubbing was done very sloppily and the story itself contains a fairly large number of inconsistencies and loose ends. Apart from that, the pace of the movie was horrendously slow at some parts.


I've watched many short films in my day. Often I find them either too compressed (throwing too much information at the viewer in the short amount of time they have to run), too 'artsy', or lacking a clear-cut vision. I can say none of these things about Starcrossed. In this review, I'll do my best to avoid any dramatic spoilers, but I'll also assume that the reader understands that the theme of this film is brotherly incest.

As with any short film, the story is fairly simple, straightforward and easy to digest. It's clear that the film attempts to shine a light one one of modern society's most deeply held taboos. This film succeeds in every respect. In the fifteen minutes of running time, I found myself feeling a gamut of emotions. With only a little dialog, the viewer is rapidly pulled into the most personal moments and thoughts of these star-crossed brothers.

From the opening scene set in their early childhood, one can see the very close relationship the brothers have. When the film progresses to the present day in the next scene, the excellent acting and honest, heartfelt performances remind the viewer that love can come in the most unexpected and harsh way. As the relationship progresses, any disgust the viewer may initially feel is quickly replaced by sympathy and emotional distress as the viewer suddenly realizes that there can be only one possible resolution. And the aftermath of that resolution is heart-rending.

Anyone with an open mind would do well to watch this film and absorb its message. If nothing else, it boldly and honestly challenges the viewer to reexamine some of our deepest beliefs on the shame-filled and secretive taboo of incest. Though the film is only fifteen minutes long, it resonates in the viewer long after the credits roll. This is perhaps my favorite short film I've ever seen. I can't recommend it highly enough.


It was a fun film to look at. Though the chance this happened in your street is small, there are still a lot off recognizable situations that will ring a bell. The simplicity of the film and the humour DO work. I must admit that you don't have to see it in a theater; it will do very well on a small TV-set. Tip: see it with some close friends.


In this flame of emotion we are introduced to several different high-school youngsters during one eventful day at school. All of them struggle with belonging,finding them selves and keeping their painful secrets from being revealed.Has the feel of a coming of age documentary focusing on students inner landscape and their way of dealing with everyday challenges.Gets of with a powerful opening and develops like a hymning requiem.Thalluri moves the camera with great skill and invites us slowly into the youngsters minds and hearts. A fictional reconstruction that enlightens us all and reminds us of the frailty of youth.One of the most important films of today. every teenager should be given the opportunity to see this moving piece of film.


Why would I say that? Because when the movie ended, I was in a good mood. So many people exclaim at the end, wow! Bruce Willis can be funny. For those of you who believe he learned how to act after the sixth sense, you must be very new to his career. He won an emmy for best actor in a comedy series before he did Die Hard. It's like saying, wow, the sky learned to deposit snow on the ground just because it's your first winter in life. The movie was hilarious. What boggles my mind is how some other comments made about this movie claims that there are no memorable lines or scenes. Spoiler...

The waaaambulance? I am not a loser? Have you ever seen a grown up scream I am not a loser before?

I thought this movie was great. It was funny, it was never boring and in a cheesy Disney sort of way, it had a point to make. Something to do with life and of course any kid movie trying to do that is in over it's head but for once, I didn't care.

If you haven't watched it. Do so. You'll like it.


Take a cliché story and insert Steve Guttenberg.Need i say anymore?This truly is as bad as you would expect. Sheriff Tom Palmer(Guttenberg)and Anna Montgormery attempt to transform a group of useless,inept kids into a winning soccer team.Lacking originality and direction from the offset it's quite a struggle to maintain any form of interest in this film. Despite my reservations about Guttenbergs acting ability i can safely say that the acting of the rival teams coach is actually worse than Guttenbergs.Previously unimaginable i thought. This type of story of underdogs battling all the way to the top has been done before and better every time than this so called 'film'


I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.

Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.

The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.

Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...

On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.

Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.

It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.


Something about the 40 Year Old Virgin and the other comedy hit of the summer, Wedding Crashers, is similar, but they are two different films in some respects. Both are romantic comedies that have that kind of over-the-top, crazy sensibility that keeps the teens and guys in their 20's along with the usual dating crowd to go see the films. Both have some sort of formula to the stories as well. But by the end of the 40 Year Old Virgin, I think I found overall it was more satisfying than 'Crashers'. Although one can guess where the relationship story with Steve Carrell's character Andy and Catherine Keener's character Trish will go to, it isn't too basic for one to figure out like with Crashers, and the characters both leading and supporting are realistic, more rounded than most of the one-dimensional or unexplained people in the other. And, perhaps, it may also depend on how much you identify (or just find the lunacy) in both.

The thing is some people may go into The 40 Year Old Virgin not knowing Steve Carrell as well as Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn, as Carrell has built up his cult status on The Daily Show (one of my favorite shows on now) and in small but unforgettably riotous roles in Anchorman and Bruce Almighty. This is his first starring role, but it's not treated like some third rate vehicle. He and co-writer/director Judd Apatow treat the character of Andy with a certain level of sincerity that keeps the audience on his side all the way, even early on as he talks to his action figures while re-painting them. It's also a tricky line to walk on- in lessor hands this could be no more or less entertaining than the Lackluster 40 Days and 40 Nights with Josh Hartnett (also about sexual dysfunction). As the title suggests, Andy is the 40 year old who is like the nice guy friend with still a little Pee-Wee Herman in him (the opening over the credits of his his apartment is hilarious, a good sign).

So, his friends (among them Paul Rudd, Romany Mancoy, Seth Rogen, all very good comic foils) try and devise different strategies and tips to finally break the sort of curse over Andy's head to pop his cherry, so to speak. He almost gets with a overly drunk woman, he almost gets with a freaky kind of girl, and almost with his own boss (Jane Lynch, also very funny in the mockumentaries) as a (explitive) buddy. But this soon all starts to fade as he gets into a meaningful relationship with Trish, who works across the street from him. As they build on a relationship not based at all on sex, one might worry that the plot gear of 'how is he going to tell her such and such' might get in the way of the comedy. It doesn't. In fact, if anything, Carrell and the cast build on it to a very high degree. For practically an hour and a half of the film's two hour length, there was barely a moment I wasn't laughing, whether big or small.

The big laughs though make up for not just any kind of formalities with the plot, or one or two little stray stories (the fellow co-workers have their own relationship problems as well, Rudd's being the funniest). The big laughs come through because of Carrell's reactions, and that the people around him can either back up with their own sort of humor/charm, or that its with some truth. Keener gives a very good performance and makes it so that there is a genuine spirit to their relationship (and, un-like 'Crashers', there isn't as much that doesn't make sense character wise). For someone like me who loves it when a comedian can get laughs just from the way he looks on his face, Carrell gets very high points here. And like with a Farrelly brothers movie, the more raunchy or outrageous scenes are done with total absurdity; the 'waxing' scene (which was done for real, by the way) and the sort of Aquarius musical number towards the very end of the film (the way it comes out at first is a total, uproarious surprise). But if you're willing not to get offended by it, there's more where that came from. This is one of the funniest films of the year.


Usually when I don't see a show on an original run, I find it later on cable and realize it's a gem. The 'Gimore Girls' is one of those rare exceptions. I'm glad I missed it.

I truly despise shows that fill every minute of the actors space with rambling, stupid, boring banter. This is one hour of just that. The mother, Lorelei, made me wonder if she is Bipolar and off her lithium. She never stopped talking; every minute, every second, talking to every person she interacted with. Worse yet, her speech is childish and soooo, like, Valley Girl. She talked about guys, her hair, her mother, her clothes. Like, what's the sitch?? (for situation). I've watched this show three times and still don't get the point of this series. It's not a comedy, it's not a drama, it has no point except to make three generations of females in one family look like the 'Girls' from Planet Mars. The males by comparison are smart and make the show somewhat watchable. If Lorelei ever existed and attempted to latch onto me with conversation, I'd have to mace her to get rid of her. She obviously doesn't know how to take a subtle hint to stop talking and start listening to someone else. She also doesn't know how to really notice the existence of others.

In one show Lorelei comes home from a date close to 10 pm. She got the date after pursuing a guy she met at an auction. She goes into her daughter's room where the daughter asks how it went. She dithers on about how boring the guy was. Her date somehow got a few words in edgewise. Lorelei complained about how the man didn't stop talking (choke). Hopefully the date learned how fortunate he was.

One other person here commented on how the mother acts like a teen and the daughter is the adult personality. Lorelei even dresses like her kid. This obviously 40-something mom dresses and looks like she hit the mall with her high school pals in tow.

I thought that this show should have been followed by 'Just Shoot Me,' because that's exactly how I felt.


Disney (and the wonderful folks at PIXAR of course) offer a nice, humourous story combined with the best of computer animation. I admit that maybe the 'faces' of the bugs were a little more static than in 'Antz' and they only had four legs (in 'Antz' six...). But backgrounds were superb and animation was breathtaking. But let this be a lesson: it was not the computer who made it such a success : it was the man behind the machine, who added the nice little twists, which I missed in 'Antz'. Some highlights were of course the 'bloopers' at the end (So keep watching at the end, it's worth it!), which were highly amusing and original. The line 'Filmed entirely on location' was intended for the more attentive viewer.


The charm of Otto Preminger's grandiose, visionary film noir is that it has ambiguous intentions, betraying the gloomy essence of the central character, who is still vexed by living in the shadow of his criminal father. Dana Andrews' driven, vindictive cop is shown as an outsider, irrational and destructive, who maybe can change because he might've found a good woman to look after him. The troubled man reclaims himself with his own tangled impression of rectitude. The distressing mood permanently circuited into the latter half of the story by screenwriter Ben Hecht reverberates in Andrews' tense performance as Preminger saturates the film in a relevantly prosaic substance of style. We don't just see and hear the city at night; we feel it because Preminger lets us see and hear even the most peripheral and distant factors of it.

Dana Andrews furnishes a complex character unfolded through his streaks of violence and the hatred that always infests him. As the plot develops, he is secretly entangled in situational snares, yet he is renewed by the outward acts that can be seen in the vintage noir protagonist's visceral facial expressions before he executes them.

This reflection of a specific phase in the development of the genre is an engrossing, feral and shady film noir that is set in the double-dealing climate of the underworld, where the hero is so estranged that he is always swelling with rage, and even though he loses his rational resistance, occupational principle, and ethical limits, he's still a good cop. Preminger just winks at telling a social-conscience drama about a corrupted community within the sprawling cityscape, rather keeping the thriller riding on Andrews' shoulders as an existential journey of personal ramifications about a man with an Oedipal fixation who is becoming disconnected though with the ever-shrinking influences of the law on his side and an undying perception of right and wrong.

The production companies in the early 1950s pussed out on the social-problem picture, and rather made 'low-budget, low-risk thrillers' such as this, apparently in an attempt to evade the conniptions of conservative critics and social busybodies. But there is an expressionistic matter-of-factness to Preminger's inimitable approach. He injects each scene with a sense of everyday drama as a backdrop for the plot. Each supporting character must pull their own weight by doing something interesting, but none of them are cartoons or depressing comic reliefs. To him, every character thinks they're the star, as per the straight-from-the-shoulder self-assertion of Karl Malden as a missionary police inspector and a veteran waitress at a lunch counter. It is those who are the stars---Andrews and Gene Tierney, both anguished by their futile attempts to subdue their emotional intensity---who don't want to be.


really awful... lead actor did OK... the film, plot etc was completely crap and inaccurate it may as well have been a sequel to well... anything it had little or no relevance to Carlitos Way... and should be avoided like the plague by any Carlito's ways fans... no mention of Gail in fact he ends up with some other bird, no mention of Klienfelt, no mention of how he got caught, no mention of how he ended up in jail... they attempted to make it like the original with flash backs at the beginning... but to be honest when rating it I was looking for a zero mark... unfortunately I had to rate it higher...

Its a terrible attempt to cash in on what was one of the best films of the 90's... overall it was approximately £6 and 2 hours of my life wasted... for all the 'action' in it, it was truly boring slow and predictable... again to any Carltio's Way fans avoid this fiasco...


The greatest compliments to the other commentator here at IMDb who asked himself why this series didn't 'get stuck' in its time to last a lot longer like many other series in the 80s did.

It is not true the series would have gotten worse if further continued.

I will at the end of this my comment post some thoughts about the other movie realizations, rather: attempts of the Robin Hood legend.

First of All, Robert Addie (Gisburne), you are among us all, you live forever.

Nothing is as fun as the entire two, if one wants, three seasons of this absolutely unique series. And at the same time absolutely agreeing with the mostly new and revolutionary findings of Terry Jones' history documentations about Egypt, Greece, Rome, Konstantinopel, the Goths and Barbarians, and the middle ages and crusades (...yes, THE Monthy Python-Terry Jones):

If you have seen those brilliant and funny Jones-Docs you will better, much better understand all the historical background stuff Carpenter, the writer of the Robin of Sherwood-series (which happens to be the brother of John Carpenter, who made 'The Thing', their third brother makes music), intended to tell us.

The writer of 'Dick Turpin', 'Catweazle' and the first two seasons of 'Robin of Sherwood', called 'Kip' Carpenter, is my movie overlord. He's better than all those others who criticize his 'sword-and-sorcery' element or 'defectiveness' (taken from the Robin of Sherwood Webring) of this series (that I can not see) or have other non-fundamented criticism of which there existed a lot back then and still now.

That's why, when you get to know this 'Robin of Sherwood' better, you'll be severe. You will at first loathe the third season. Not only that: I did myself go thru this, and on top of it, I have only taken up the first two seasons into my deepest heart - DESPITE the fact that Praed, the actor of Robin, left this series, because after the series had enormous success, he was offered a probably better paid role in an absolutely ridiculous Canadian series called 'The new Adeventures of Jules Verne' - already the title reveals the emptiness of the whole project. Praed went for money, and not for fame, he didn't stick with his gang and kin, I mean: as actors.

Actors who personally represent the afterwards 'really', in our present time famous and legendary faces and characters of the Robin-Legend. The potential of this series could and should have been let blossomed a lot more without any degrading niveau of content and historical message and rebellious accuracy regarding current political issues.

Again, obligatory to say: A change of the main role was forced by Praed's stupid decision of leaving Robin of Sherwood for a silly remake-series of the Verne-tales and brilliantly woven into the filming of the story. Still it is in some aspects a catastrophe.

Anyway: If one is informed about this, and that Connery was maybe really advertised by his father, but that the young Connery DID NOT AT ALL 'chase Praed away', how I prejudicially thought in the first place, then one can absolutely enjoy the 3rd season. Sad here is that the script was not anymore written by Superman Kip Carpenter, so we don't have anymore that critical and free-thinking historical background like i.e. in 'The Witch of Elsdon', or in 'The King's Fool', two episodes of the first series that is A) funny, B) historically educating and C) brilliantly acted. ===

'Don't trust the Lion!'

Unlike many other characters that wished him dead for the sake of their own gain of power, Richard Lionheart, as shown in RoS and as in real history, was a greater authority than John or others, but used it only for his wicked idea of the crusade and the war against Normandie in France. He slaughtered and had slaughtered much more than tens of thousands of Christians, Muslims and Jews in the 'wholy' crusades, and his soldiers even devoured the children they slayed out of hunger or poverty. On top of that, after his capture by the Saracens (muslims) in the crusades, Britain was squeezed out for his ransom, 100.000 marks (at that time, 11th century, comparable to approx. 30 Billion - 30'000'000'000.- Dollars of current value), to get him safely back, and then he just visited England for a month to return to Normandie (in France, where the Norman Invaders went first) for the crusades (one learns that in the episode 'The King's Fool'). For this new crusade, possibly kind of a revenge for his capture, Richard Lionheart again 'drains the country of money' (cited out of Clive Mantle's mouth, when he lectures Robin in being critical with even the King). Robin criticizes this warfare unsocial ruling of Richard's, he addresses Richard himself, telling him 'The poor gave everything to set you free, how CAN you ask more of them?' - Richard: '...Give me your courage and strength, not your words!' ...Later, in private, Richard orders the assassination of Robin...

So, the crusaders were the real 'barbarians'.

P.S: Already when I watched Kostner in 91, I got upset, because after-wards, I found out in history course in school that Richard was not that good just man as displayed by Sean Connery in his appearance at the end of 'Prince of the Thieves'. Well, as Terry Jones would put it: It is a lie, a treacherous lie!' Sean plays humorist and charismatic, and his son does a better job than expected in the third season of 'Robin of Sherwood'.

Again: Praed is, according to my info up to now, the one who left Sherwood for a stupid Verne-series nobody with brains will EVER remember or want to remember.


This script was mildly original when it was written in 1935, but the poor performances and the inconsistent quality level make it impossible to recommend. Some of the vignettes are absolutely terrible and the dialogue is never natural. A few of the plot twists were creative, but I was very surprised to see it so highly rated here at the IMDB. A few scenes are worthwhile, it's as a film that if fails completely to entertain. If you like this sort of montage, run don't walk and get 'Tales of Manhattan' (1942) a marvelous film that follows the life and times of a topcoat.


The movie was very good. I'm an avid mystery fan and I usually figure out who is going to be killed and who did the killing. While I did figure out who was going to be killed I didn't figure out who did it. I wasn't happy with the portrayal of the Gerda character but given the year the movie was supposed to take place it is possible the woman would have been that 'cloying'. Please know that while these Poirot movies are good, they just don't have the same dynamic to them as the series does because they don't have Japp, Ms. Lemon and especially Hastings! David Suchet is definitely Poirot. I have seen every actor who's played him. The worst was Peter Ustinov!


This movie has a very deep look at the relationships between a mother who was raised in a Christian environment and learned that appearance is everything. She and her son, who just recently returned from Vietnam collide in some very tense issues. The relationship has no connections intimately and is a great accurate portrayal of what it is like to live with someone who is false and only looks at the surface of issues. Kathy Bates does an excellent job of portraying a woman of false faith who is either oblivious to her cruelty, forgetful or just doesn't want to be confronted. Jeremy's wrath is never feared and it leads to a very disturbing conflict between him and his feelings about his fathers love for him. This is a very honest look at some family dynamics after a traumatic event leads one to despair.


I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.

I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy.


I have been a 'huge' rush fan ever since 'moving pictures' and this concert is simply and example to everyone who is a fan why Rush is so popular. They completely admitted to playing their biggest concert yet, and, despite the rain in a soccer arena, they still manage to give an outstanding performance from start to finish. A real example of this is during 'yyz' the entire crowd start to sing along to it in a real classic manner, in perfect sinc. They really play all of everyone's favorite songs with a real powerful 'lust' that rarely happens anymore. You get the best seat in the house for one of their best concerts given. The second DVD is a fascinating documentary of the band while they are in brazil and shows you a lot of the backstage things going on and it allows you to see them not just a musicians but as actual people in their everyday life. This DVD gift set is a must for any Rush fan young and old and is definitely a keeper for your DVD collection. Their is even a cd of the concert for those who just want to listen to the music. This DVD is worth it!


' Now in India's sunny 'clime, where I use to spend my time as a soldier in the service of her Majesty the queen . . . ' so goes the famous poem penned by Rudyard Kipling. This is the literal foundation upon which the movie 'Gunga Din' is based. If you are fortunate enough to watch this legendary Classic, you will enjoy films the way they use to make them; for the sheer pleasure. Taken from the script of the established novelist and poet, this is a story of a humble Indian native named Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) who works as 'a regimental beasty' during the British occupation of India during the 18th century. His greatest wish is to become a soldier. The water boy is part of a British Calvary contingent threatened with death by a notorious blood cult of Kali called the 'Thuggee.' Three particular soldiers stand out in this company who are noted for their bravery and comradeship. First is handsome and debonair, Cary Grant playing Sgt. Archibald Cutter. Next is Victor McLaglen as courageous Sgt. MacChesney and finally there's flamboyant Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as Sgt. Thomas Ballantine. All three and their fellow soldiers are surrounded by a hoard of mountain stranglers led by their fanatical leader called the 'Guru' (Eduardo Ciannelli). Amid the Chaos of war, is the brave water-boy who hopes to earn a place in the army by playing a bugle he found. A solid story for an old black and white film which needs little fanfare for anyone looking to enjoy a classic. ****


I don't know if this is a sitcom or not, but I agree that this is one of the greatest television shows ever. It's great that this show still airs. And I love Michelle. It's cute on the episodes when she was a baby and she talked, and she sometimes said something funny. Aw.

This show can relate to children and teens and.. well, families as they struggle through rough times and try to work it out as a family. I don't know who would ever turn down an opportunity to watch this show with someone.

I love the episode when I think her name is DD.. the older girl accidentally stole a sweatshirt, and she learned a lesson about stealing. That was a great episode. An example that this TV show shows the family working things out as a family.

I recommend this show for everyone.


No, this is nothing about that fairy tale with the pumpkin coach, fairy godmother and the glass slippers, but if I were to elaborate, I would have to spoil it for you, which I won't. But don't let curiosity get the better of you, as this movie is not fantastic. It's one of those movies that start off promisingly, before betraying its audience with cheap scare tactics and an incoherent storyline. And that's real horror.

Yoon-hee (To Ji-Won) and Hyun-soo (Shin Se-kyeong) are your ideal mother and daughter. One's a successful plastic surgeon, while the other your dutiful, obedient, and beautiful teenage daughter. Their relationship is like hand in glove, so close you'd think of them more as siblings rather than parent-child. But things start to go wrong (don't they always) when Hyun-soo's friends, whom Yoon-hee has operated on, start to go berserk.

Perhaps it's a warning to audiences, and for those Koreans ladies who don't bat an eyelid when going under the knife, if news reports are to be believed. The only truly scary moments are those scenes in plastic surgery, though somehow, I thought Kim Ki-duk's Time actually had more gore when featuring and describing what goes on during the surgery itself.

It's a tale of two halves, the fist being an attempt to shock audiences with standard scare tactics, which, I admit, did get to me now and then. However, the second half degenerated the movie into mindless mumbo-jumbo melodramatics, and was quite contrived into its forcing its ideas down your throat. Some things begin not to make sense, and while attempts are always presented to explain, you probably won't buy it, not that horror movies are logical to begin with.

The leads are all beautiful, and there is a distinct lack of male presence besides the negligible cop role. But hey, I'm not complaining, though the storyline could have been improved tremendously. I'd recommend you to watch this, only if you're a fan of mediocre Korean horror, on VCD. Watch out for those face off-ish moments!


This movie is definitely on the list of my top 10 favorites. The voices for the animals are wonderful. Sally Field and Michael J. Fox are both brilliant as the sassy feline and the young inexperienced pooch, but the real standout is Don Ameche as the old, faithful golden retriever. This movie is a great family movie because it can be appreciated and loved by children as well as adults. Humorous and suspenseful, and guaranteed to make every animal lover cry! (happy tears!)


This is one of the funniest movies I've ever saw. A 14-year old boy Jason Shepherd wrote an English paper called 'Big Fat Liar'. When his skateboard was taken, he had to use his sister's bike to get to the college on time and he hit a limo. When he went into the limo, he met a famous producer from Hollywood, Marty Wolf. When he left the limo, he forgot one thing: his paper! So Marty Wolf took it and he turned Jason's English paper into a movie! When Jason admitted that he left his paper in the limo and Marty took it, his parents and his English teacher didn't believe him! So Jason and his friend Kaylee had to fly to Los Angeles to go to Hollywood to make Marty admit he stole his story to Jason's parents. When Jason told Marty to call his dad that Marty stole that paper, Marty tricked him and burned his paper! Jason got so angry that Marty burned that paper so Marty called security to get Jason out of his site! Jason and Kaylee realized Marty isn't going to admit the truth. In order to take Marty down in Phase 2: The Takedown, Jason and Kaylee put permanent blue dye into the pool and when Marty jumps in, his body turns all blue and it wouldn't come off! Then they put permanent orange dye in Marty's shampoo and when he uses it, his hair turns all orange and it wouldn't come off too! Finally, they put lots of glue on Marty's earpiece to make him call Jason's father and when Marty uses it, it sticks to his ear! It was funny when Marty's hair and body turns all blue and orange and his headset is glued to his ear! After that, they tricked Marty by telling Monty, who is Marty's assistant, that Duncan moved to a house where there's a party going on. When Marty went in to see Duncan, he was at the wrong house and all the kids at the party beat him up! When Marty was in the house, Jason and Kaylee switched the controls of his car. When Marty drove his car, he knew all the controls were switched and he didn't know which button to push. He's stupid enough to fall for it. When Marty hit the rear end of the masher, the masher wrecked his car! It was so funny. So Marty starts to call Jason's dad and tricked him again! He was on the phone, but it wasn't his father, he called security! After the security got Jason and Kaylee out of Marty's site, they suggested them to go home. Monty was going to be on Jason and Kaylee's side cause she knew that Marty was a liar and a jerk so she told Rocco, who is one of the security guards that she will take care of the kids. Jason told his father the truth of what he's been up to for the past 2 days and had his parents come to L.A. When Monty came to the kids, she's going to help the kids move into Phase 4: The Payback. Jason splits the crew into 3 teams for Phase 4. One team will distract and trick Marty until Jason's parents get to the set. Marty first rode with Frank Jackson, but his car broke down so he rode with Jaleel, but he took him into the desert and leave him there. When Marty was in the desert, a helicopter came to rescue him. After that, one of the blades are jammed so Marty and the pilot got off the helicopter. After that, he was on the way to the set and when Jason saw him, Marty stopped and saw what Jason has: his monkey! So Marty went after Jason and Kaylee and when they saw Lester, he released the water and when the water came, it pushed Marty away. Marty was still after the kids and when Kaylee went the other way, Jason led Marty to the top of the apartment building. At the top, Jason was challenging Marty by making him admit the truth and Marty will never ever tell the truth. When the crew caught Marty in surprise, all the people including Jason's parents who were at the set knew what Marty did. Marty was going to kill Jason but the only way for Jason to escape is jump down from the top! After that, his parents believed him that Marty took his story. When the people who were on the set left, this is the end of Marty. At the end, Jason's story, Big Fat Liar was a movie. I cant get enough of it.


This video is a fantastic testament and insight into the work of Bill Hicks. Thought provoking barely begins to describe it.It's funny and moving and educational and a whole host of other things that are good for you. Make sure you see it.


Perspective is a good thing. Since the release of 'Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace', claims and counter-claims of just how Episode's II and III will eventuate has taken the spotlight off the 'original' Star Wars films, making them part of a cohesive whole, rather than segregating the older and new films into separate trilogies. What the new films have done is allow fresh perspectives to be placed on the older films. This new outlook allows us to greater appreciate what has often been viewed as the weakest of the original trilogy: 'Return of the Jedi'. Often derided for its overly 'cute' factor, ROTJ is in a sense as strong as the original and only slightly less impressive than the nearly perfect 'The Empire Strikes Back'. Indeed the 'cute' element of ROTJ, namely the Ewoks, remains a weak link in the entire series. Did George Lucas place the furry midgets in the film purely for the merchandising possibilities? Only he can answer that question.

This cute factor aside, the film is a brilliant full circle AND evolution of the saga. Following on from the conclusion of 'The Empire Strikes Back', Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) follows his Rebel Alliance friends to Tatooine, his home planet, to rescue Han Solo (Harrison Ford), the space pirate turned Rebel hero who was captured by Jabba the Hutt for overdue debts.

Skywalker is a changed man since leaving Tatooine with Ben 'Obi Wan' Kenobi (Alec Guiness) to fight the evil Empire. Now swathed all in black, Luke's discovery of his origins have left him confused and torn. His psychological make up is not as strong as his outward appearance would suggest. While he might aim to always assist his Rebel friends, he yearns for another chance to confront the evil Darth Vader again, despite his unassuredness as to whether he will destroy him or eventually turn to the Dark Side and join Vader at the Emperor's side.

Early scenes in Tatooine are impressive, from Jabba's lair, to his floating palace and the 'almighty Sarlac' - an intenstine that lives in the sand. Lucas' CGI enhancements to the film in 1997 actually worsened the overall effect of the Sarlac, making it look fake and overdone.

The battle scene on Tatooine is outstanding, and is one of the more memorable of the saga. Luke almost singlehandedly anihiliates Jabba and his cronies, proving his prowess as a Jedi is now almost complete.

When Luke returns to the Degobah system to visit the ailing Yoda one more time, the viewer is let down by Yoda's distinct lack of screentime. Undoubtably the star of 'The Empire Strikes Back', Yoda is all but erased from the story as the progression of Luke's destiny is played out on screen.

ROTJ really is Luke's film, perhaps even more so than the original. His journey carries the movie as he moves closer to his confrontation with Darth Vader and his fate. The other Rebel characters certainly work in his shadow. The romance between Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Solo is all but non-existant, unlike in 'Empire'. In fact only Leia's character is developed in ROTJ, Solo's character seems to fade as the facets of his personality have become too familiar in the first two films.

Their roles are consigned to working alongside the Rebels to destroy an all new Death Star that nears completion. This time the Emperor himself is overseeing the final stages of construction. The Empire intends to crush the Rebellion once and for all, while the Emperor himself schemes to bring the now powerful Skywalker to his side to work alongside (or is that replace?) Darth Vader. The Emperor is a different kind of evil for this film, less cunning than Governor Tarkin (Peter Cushing) from 'Star Wars', more deeply psychologically dark than anything else. Played brilliantly by Ian McDiarmid, the Emperor is just one of those characters you love to hate.

All the other actors are well entrenched in their roles. Hamill surprises as the more wisened Luke, making his character's progression from whiny teenager, impatient student to enlightened warrior one of the few real character developments of the series. Ford's role is waring thin, as all his charm and charisma was spent in the first two films -- he was the REAL star of the first film after all. Fisher's Leia is more of a prop, at least unti the end of the film where she learns things about herself that she was never sure about... Add in favourites like Alec Guiness as Kenobi, Yoda and the loveable Chewbacca, C-3PO and R2D2 and the series resembles a family more than a cast.

Despite the film's corny forest battle involving the Ewoks and the Empire, it ends well and includes a three way battle sequence: on Endor, in space and on the Death Star, each with very impressive special effects. The music, as always, is brilliant and captures the mood perfectly in every instance. Just as the 'Blue Danube' worked perfectly for '2001: A Space Odyssey', John Williams' score is as much a part of 'Star Wars' folklore as light sabers and the Force.

Lucas left the ending open to interpretation, meaning there could have been more episodes made. Indeed sci-fi fans have created their own versions of Episodes VII, VIII and IX in their heads over and over again. ROTJ works when given a chance, and furry cute animals aside is a good finish to the series.

When all six episodes get to be viewed together, this saga could well be the best ever made. Is it already? The addition of Episode I changed the landscape of the series. This is why 'Return of the Jedi' can now be viewed in a different light and be given a whole new appreciation nearly 20 years after its release.


The best bond game made of all systems. It was made of the best bond movie of all time. If you don't have the game Goldeneye you should rent it and if you don't have the movie Goldeneye you should rent it also to better understand the game. The best bond game of all!!!


The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a 'walker' is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.

I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the 'artistic' male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.

The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a 'walker' may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it.

As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.

Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan.


I posted on IMDb on this series recently, giving a snail mail address at the commercial arm of the BBD where one would write to appeal release. I wrote to that address, mentioning Sam Waterson and his popularity prominently. I just received the following reply:

From: emilyfussell@hotmail.com Subject: Oppenheimer Date: May 14, 2006 1:44:00 PM MDT To: kk2840@earthlink.net

Dear Kate,

I work for the BBFC, the British equivalent to the MPAA, and we classify DVDs and videos as well as films in this country. Anyway, I am currently in the process of giving a certificate to the 1980 miniseries 'Oppenheimer.' While researching the work on the IMDb, I noticed your post and thought you might like to know that the work is about to be released (hence the need for a certificate).

I don't know which company is distributing it, but keep your eyes peeled!

Kind regards,

Emily +++++++++++++++++

hooray!

I also want to contact Netflix re purchasing this.

Kate Killebrew

kk2840@earthlink.net I emailed the BBC recently regarding whether their terrific series Oppenheimer had ever been released on video or DVD. I have not been able to find it. I received the following reply. If you do write the BBC, be sure to mention that Sam Waterston is very popular in the US. You can also enter 'Oppenheimer (1980)' on amazon.com, and find a box to check to request release by the owner (BBC) and be notified when it's released.

Kate Killebrew kk2840@earthlink.net

Here's the reply from the BBC:

Dear Kate

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Oppenheimer'.

I was interested to read that you would like a copy of this programme which you have enjoyed. I have checked the BBC Shop and on-line retailers and can find no record of it being available. We are unaware of plans at present to release this programme on DVD. However, if you would like to make a suggestion, can I suggest you put it in writing to the commercial arm of the BBC:

Commissioning Editor BBC Worldwide Ltd Woodlands 80 Wood Lane London W12 0TT

May I thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

Elaine Hunter BBC Information ______________________________________

-----Original Message-----

{Comments:} i am trying to find a copy of the terrific BBC production 'Oppenheimer', a six part series made in 1980 with Sam Waterston from a book/script by Peter Prince. I watched parts of it then on PBS American Playhouse, but can't find it on video anywhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/


This is the first Pepe Le Pew cartoon and in some ways it's very similar to the later ones but in a few other odd ways it is not. While the object of Pepe's affections IS a cat, oddly it appears to be a BOY cat! This whole predicament occurs because a cat is tired of being abused by others and dresses up like a skunk and tries to smell like a skunk so it can be left alone. Unfortunately, this attracts our hero, Pepe. Most of the action is pretty typical until the very funny and unexpected ending--and this actually makes this one of the best of all cartoons in the series. Excellent animation (though the style is different than later examples), excellent writing and a good sense of humor make this one a keeper.


I just watched this short at the PlanetOut Movies.

Starcrossed was a very sweet, sad, little movie about two brothers that are in love. There is some great, subtle acting from both the male leads. Often times movies with this subject matter seem to get too caught up in the controversy and shock value of the plot that they forget that there is an actual story. Luckily writer director James Burkhammer does not do this, and instead lets the story play out with honesty. The sequences of the two boys first falling in love are very sweet.


Absolutely nothing is redeeming about this total piece of trash, and the only thing worse than seeing this film is seeing it in English class. This is literally one of the worst films I have ever seen. It totally ignores and contradicts any themes it may present, so the story is just really really dull. Thank god the 80's are over, and god save whatever man was actually born as 'James Bond III'.


this is one amazing movie!!!!! you have to realize that chinese folklore is complicated and philosophical. there are always stories behind stories. i myself did not understand everything but knowing chinese folklore (i studied them in school)it is very complicated. you just have to take what it gives you.....ENJOY THE MOVIE AND ENJOY THE RIDE....HOORAY!!!!


This movie was quite a mess. There wasn't anything really going for it. The only character that had any appeal was Bobbie Phillips' Maya and she wasn't even worth it.

The plot is standard, double-cross the double-crossing double-crosser. With a few too many double crosses to make any sense. Sometimes that means it 'keeps you guessing' in this case it 'keeps you waiting'. By the end I just wanted everyone to get thrown in jail or shot.


Bigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in 'Predator'), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind ('a creature knows what threatens it'). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror film.


This movie is great. Stylish, fun, good acting. I'd seen it described variously as 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Muskets' and 'Reservoir Fops', both of which are excellent descriptions. The plot is simple, but it does not detract from the enjoyment. Carlyle is a brilliant ruffian and Miller is an excellent drunken gentleman. The sets and costumes are stunning, and the music and camerawork are refleshingly unusual for a 'costume drama'. Sense and Sensibility it definitely is not!!!!! My recommendation? Go see it, sit back with a huge tub of popcorn and have a damn good time.


Satya was excellent.... Company was just as good but more polished, probably owing to the money earned from previous movies. Ab Tak Chappan however is even more entertaining. The dialogue is gritty, crude and at times hilarious. Nana Pataker shines yet again in a role that only he can fulfill with authority but the supporting cast are very talented. Direction is tight and the story evolves at a satisfying pace with a very dramtic climax. As a depiction of reality it may be over-dramatised but at the end of the day it's a movie so the balance is spot-on. I've ordered my DVD and can't wait to see it again at home. As a lover of these type of gangster flicks, this is very gratifying and comes highly recommended for the refreshingly 'non-Yash Raj' Bollywood gangster flick lovers out there.


Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though!

I like to organize 'bad movie evenings' from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!

The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!


Okay, When I bought this flick I though this gotta be the ultimate b-movie, space monkey landing to the Earth and starts right away to kill people!

Well, It was almost everything what I expected, typical low-budget scifi movie from the 60's. Acting has to be the worst I've ever seen, especially the girl playing the lead role and the girl that played the waitress made me laughing my ass off.

So why 'Night Fright' doesn't fall in to category 'so bad that it's good'? Reason why is that some of the scenes were just too long and boring. For example the scene were the police officers are searching clues in the woods it was just minutes of walking without purpose. And then the grand finale, the people's waiting for the monster about 5 minutes and when the space monkey appears it get wack'd in 20 second, end of film.

Yeah, 'Night Fright' is boring, but it got couple of funny moments. I can recommend this movie to all who liked films like 'Zontar, the Thing from Venus' or 'Curse of the Swamp Creature'.

I give 'Night Fright' 4 Space Monkey slaps out of 10..

-Rob Gruesome-


This movie contains personalities that so deliciously are playing their parts, I love the final, when nobody knows what are they gonna do about their life, but it's completely great when you see and realize that the priest is right, is jut for two, so what are the other persons doing there? The movie embrace you to a new life, to experiences, to be able of dream with the other person and reach those dreams. Also shows you the life itself, hard like it is. But gives you the option to choose what you want and what you really need. Hope this comment works for you. The movie it did worked well for me. I bought the movie by the way ;) Take care.


Gone with the wind is one of the most popular books ever printed . It is by far the movie of all movies . The romance between Scarlett and Rhett made people dream all over the world and turned the lead actors into cinematographic icons . One can ask , is it really necessary to make a sequel ? And ... there are some big shoes to fill .

Well , there was the book first . 'Scarlett' by Alexandra Ripley is , we have to admit , well-written and fully respecting the world created by Margaret Mitchell . She picks up exactly where we left our heroine previously and gently leads us from Mitchell's heritage into her own fantasy . In the book Scarlett , defeated after Melanie's death and Rhett's leaving , travels to Charleston to reside with her mother-in-law in hope of regaining Rhett's love . Her typical manipulative behavior evokes once again a lot of criticism from Rhett and drives them further apart ... until a certain boat trip that will change everything . Scarlett now carries a secret . The series follows the book quite accurately until the arrival of Scarlett in Ireland . From then of , book and series slowly split ways . The actual end differs , but of course the both have Scarlett and Rhett back together .

The production of the series was announced with a worldwide search for the next Scarlett O'Hara . Many countries made their own television shows featuring young actresses auditioning for the part . Eventually , about twelve girls were chosen to participate in the final screen tests and interviews in Atlanta , Georgia . Unfortunately , the producer found no Scarlett amongst these actresses . Sad for the girls , major publicity for the show ( it was already sold to many television stations worldwide before shooting even had started ). Robert Halmi , the producer who bought the rights to 'Scarlett' , told he discovered the right actress while watching TV , gave her a call and two days later signed the deal . Joanne Whalley-Kilmer ( who starred in'Willow' and 'Scandal' , the latest being the movie Robert Halmi was watching that faithful evening )is not Vivien Leigh , but she certainly is Scarlett ! Her performance is not a copy of Leigh's , she makes the character her own . The major difference between GWTW and 'Scarlett' is the fact the lead character evolves and grows as a person . This is the series prerogative , why copying something that has been done before ? Considering there is a gap of almost seventy years between the first and second storyline , it is natural that both authors emphasize on different aspects of the characters . Whereas Mitchell works around Scarlett dealing with the consequences of the civil war and fighting for Tara , Ripley lets Scarlett face her demons . This to me , is the most interesting aspect of the series , we get to know Scarlett in a different way as she learns that not everything can always go the way she wants . I totally agree with the choice of Timothy Dalton as Rhett Butler . He portrays him with charm and irony and is less of a cardboard figure than Clark Gable's performance . The rest of the cast was well chosen . Julie Harris is endearing as Rhett's mother , John Gielgud gives a very amusing performance as grandfather Robillard and Sean Bean is always at his best playing a dirty character , his Lord Fenton makes no exception . Poor choices however with Stephen Collins as Ashley and Ann-Margret's adaption of Belle Watling was a waste of money . Costumes , sets and locations are elaborate and convincing . The newly built Tara set looked exactly the same and it is a moving sequence in the series when the house appears for the first time .

Is there a point in making a sequel ... Well , six hours of romance are to me . One to watch !


A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing 'poor Charlie!' over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays 'Silver Threads Among the Gold' as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in 'Animal Crackers,' or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom 'Hazel' a la 'Strange Interlude'. But it isn't good.


I try to watch it everyday most of the time, and even though I have watched it for the past 4 years, I have not seen every episode.

The Show is about Danny Tanner who is guy who does news for sports. His wife is killed by a car accident from a drunk driver and he asks Jesse, an Elvis maniac with a motorcycle and has an obsession of his hair. Joey, an adult kid who does comedy and does voices of cartoons all the time to take care of his three girls, Donna Joe, they call her D.J., Stephinie who is the second oldest and Michelle, the youngest.

They all live under one roof with no one to help them out.

Later in the show, Jesse gets a girl friend and later is married to her and have twins, Nicki and Alex. (this starts to happen in the new seasons) This show is awesome, if you like The Suite life of Zack and Cody, That's so Raven, Boy Meets world, and Designing Woman, you will love this. (It starts to get better in the ending seasons) Watch it, you will love it!


I really wanted to like this film however after an amusing opening few minutes I hardly cracked a smile. I agree there was no chemistry at all between the two leads and the other characters were cliche ridden. The script totally wasted the talents of Bud Tingwell and Kim Gyngell.

It must be said however that there was plenty of laughter around me and even a smattering of applause at the end. Perhaps I just couldn't relate to it enough. I'm just glad I went on cheap tickets.


A light, uplifting and engaging movie. Watching Irene Dunne is a delight! As you watch her, she ceases to be Irene Dunne and becomes in every way Paula Wharton.

I have enjoyed Irene Dunne in every movie that I have seen and that would be nearly all of them. What a shame that most of her movies need restoration so badly. I do hope Irene Dunne movie are restored before it is too late they are such treasures Thank goodness this is not the case with Over 21.

It is a must see if you like superb acting and witty comedy with serious overtones. I agree with a previous comment on the speech 'The World and Apple Pie' it was one of the many highlights of the movie. I read somewhere that Irene Dunne helped in writing that speech along with Director Vidor (Irene Dunne was a very good and charitable person in private life) and it certainly seems to show through in her movies!


For all the viewers who have seen 'The Cure' would agree with me on this comment that it is a superb movie and is very heartwarming. Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro prove their star quality in this movie, along with Dexter's (Mazzello) mother Annabella Sciorra.

When i first watched The Cure on TV, i didn't know what to expect, but as i watched this masterpiece it soon became clear what it was about. Dexter an 11 year old boy who is plagued with AIDS, sits around his backyard playing with his toys when one day he meets his next door neighbour Eric, which at first is a little awkward for the 2 boys, but they soon became good friends.

During the film, i kept wondering what would happen to the two boys, as they kept me wondering. I wondered how the heck they would get to New Orleans sitting a door with a sea biscuit under it pulling an inflatable crocodile behind it. There were other great scenes throughout the movie.

But the part that reached out to me was the part when Dexter's health started to deteriorate. You just couldn't help but wonder if he was going to make it but towards the end you find out. I thought at the first prank they played, that Dexter was really dead he obviously wasn't, silly me. But when they play the third, something is very wrong. Dexter doesn't get up to laugh nor does he show any kind of laughter. At that point the victim of their prank soon announces that poor Dexter had died. At that part i lost it. I balled my eyes out, and from that scene onwards i was crying. You just have to. As the end nears you start to understand Eric's loss and then the movie ends on a nice note with Dexters shoe floating ever so slowly down the river.

Overall this movie was excellent. It has laughter, adventure, emotion and sadness etc. When you put that in a blender you get an excellent, must watch film. Peter Horton has done a great job directing this film and i believe its certainly one of his best. But for now, i will try to search for this movie on DVD, if it exists that is. Once again a superb movie that will take you on an emotional rollercaoster.


This is a beautiful film. The true tale of bond between father and son. This is by far, Tom Hanks at his finest. Tom Hanks is really out of the box in this movie. He usually has the nice guy roles. Yet in this film,he comes off in this film as a bit gritty, but still emerges smelling like a rose, even until the very last scene, the assassination of his character. The cast of this movie was well put together. I also love the part when there is total silence when Tom Hanks' character shoots and kills all of the men in Mr. Rooney's group. There is something chilling and yet profound about no sound in that scene, just simply emotion. I love the look on John Rooney, Paul Newman's character's face when he realizes even before seeing him, that it is Tom Hanks's character getting revenge, and he knows his fate has come. The first time I saw this movie I was blown away and knew I had to go out and get the video and I since have, adding it to my collection of my all time favorite movies.

Tom Hanks is my favorite actor, so this film has a special place in me.


Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, 'Well, that's not what I expected.' But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?


Sadly IMDb does not allow me to rate Judges lower than 1. What a shame. This ghastly movie is so bad that I actually turned the damned thing off well before the ending. The script had a few bright moments, but the directing, editing, acting, audio quality, and especially timing on line delivery was so abhorrent as make Judges utterly unbearable.

Judges was advertised as being like a modern day comic book style western, but in reality was nothing of the sort. What it is most like is dog poop on the bottom of your shoe. You can try to pretend it is okay, but it just keeps on stinking.

Why video stores think it is okay to carry this kind of crap with constant gaps in the audio and worse than high school drama class acting is beyond me. We rent movies in order to see something better that what is on television. But Judges is worse than the most pathetic SciFi Channel original. I intend to demand my money back from Hollywood Video.


It is a superb Swedish film .. it was the first Swedish film I've seen .. it is simple & deep .. what a great combination!.

Michael Nyqvist did a great performance as a famous conductor who seeks peace in his hometown.

Frida Hallgren was great as his inspirational girlfriend to help him to carry on & never give up.

The fight between the conductor and the hypocrite priest who loses his battle with Michael when his wife confronts him And defends Michael's noble cause to help his hometown people finding their own peace in music.

The only thing that I didn't like was the ending .. it wasn't that good but it has some deep meaning.


To make a good movie you either need excellent actors or an excellent director. You need at least one of the two. In this Eye of the Needle we have none.

I don't even remember the name of the director. He mustn't have done much in his career. I like very much Donald Sutherland but he absolutely cannot be the main actor in a movie. He falls short. Sutherland is excellent in a movie when he appears for not more than 15 minutes. I would say for instance that Sutherland was excellent in JFK of Oliver Stone when he talked to Kevin Costner on the bench of a park for 10 minutes non-stop without even taking a breath. Wonderful. But Sutherland being the principal actor in a movie is no good.

Kate Nelligan? She is probably good for TV series. The DVD is awful. Terrible colors. Terrible light. I couldn't even appreciate the scenery of Storm Island for how lousy the photography was.

This Ken Follett story was good but it's a pity they turned it into an uninteresting movie.


I kept waiting for the film to move me, inspire me, shock me, sadden me in some way but it stirred none of my emotions. It just meandered along to the end. None of the characters seemed very unique or complex, they just seemed like actors reciting their lines. I think it could have been a better movie if the characters expressed more emotion. The only one who did and was believable was the veteran and he probably committed suicide just to get out of the movie as soon as he could. It was a waste of talent, film, their time, and mine. If there is a message or meaning or genius in this story, it certainly is well-hidden or I am very dense, which I doubt.