Datasets:

dipanjanS

/

imdb_sentiment_finetune_dataset

like 0

This short film that inspired the soon-to-be full length feature - Spatula Madness - is a hilarious piece that contends against similar cartoons yielding multiple writers. The short film stars Edward the Spatula who after being fired from his job, joins in the fight against the evil spoons. This premise allows for some funny content near the beginning, but is barely present for the remainder of the feature. This film's 15-minute running time is absorbed by some odd-ball comedy and a small musical number. Unfortunately not much else lies below it. The plot that is set up doesn't really have time to show. But it's surely follows it plot better than many high-budget Hollywood films. This film is worth watching at least a few times. Take it for what it is, and don't expect a deep story.

Okay, last night, August 18th, 2004, I had the distinct displeasure of meeting Mr. Van Bebble at a showing of the film The Manson Family at the Three Penny in Chicago as part of the Chicago Underground Film Festival. Here's what I have to say about it. First of all, the film is an obvious rip off of every Kenneth Anger, Roman Polanski, Oliver Stone and Terry Gilliam movie I've ever seen. Second of all, in a short Q & A session after the show Mr. Van Bebble immediately stated that he never made any contact with the actual Manson Family members or Charlie himself, calling them liars and saying he wanted nothing to do with them, that the film was based on his (Van Bebble's) take on the trial having seen it all from his living room on TV and in the news (and I'm assuming from the Autobiography and the book Helter Skelter which were directly mimicked through the narrative). So I had second dibs on questions, I asked if he was trying to present the outsider, Mtv, sex drugs and rock 'n roll version and not necessarily the true story. This question obviously pissed off the by now sloshed director who started shouting "f*** you, shut the f*** up, this is the truth! All those other movies are bullsh**!"<br /><br />Well anyway, I didn't even think about how ridiculous this was until the next day when I read the tagline for the film, "You've heard the laws side of the story...now hear the story as it is told by the Manson Family." Excuse me, if this guy has never even spoken to the family and considers them to be liars that he doesn't want to have anything to do with, how in God's name can he tell the story for them!? This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard! The film was obviously catered to the sex drugs and rock 'n roll audience that it had no trouble in attracting to the small, dimly lit theatre, and was even more obviously spawned by the sex drugs and rock 'n roll mind of a man who couldn't even watch his own film without getting up every ten minutes to go get more beer or to shout some sort of Rocky Horroresque call line to the actors on screen. This film accomplishes little more than warping the public's image of actual events (which helped shape the state of America and much of the world today) into some sort of Slasher/Comic Book/Porno/Rape fantasy dreamed up by an obviously shallow individual.<br /><br />The film was definitely very impressive to look at. The soundtrack was refreshing as it contained actual samples of Charlie's work with the Family off of his Lie album. The editing was nice and choppy to simulate the nauseating uncertainty of most modern music videos. All in all this film would have made a much better addition to the catalogues at Mtv than to the Underground Film Festival or for that matter the minds of any intellectual observers. I felt like I was at a midnight Rocky Horror viewing the way the audience was dressed and behaving (probably the best part of the experience). The cast was very good with the exception of Charlie who resembled some sort of stoned Dungeons and Dragons enthusiast more than the actual role he was portraying. The descriptions the film gave of him as full of energy, throwing ten things at you and being very physical about it all the while did not match at all the slow, lethargic, and chubby representation that was actually presented.<br /><br />All in all the film basically explains itself as Sadie (or maybe it was Linda) declares at the end, "You can write a bunch of bullsh** books or make a bunch of bullsh** movies...etc. etc." Case in point. Even the disclaimer "Based on a True Story" is a dead giveaway, signalling that somewhere beneath this psychedelic garbage heap lay the foundation of an actual story with content that will make and has made a difference in the world. All you have to do is a little bit of alchemy to separate the truth from the the crap, or actually, maybe you could just avoid it all together and go read a book instead.<br /><br />All I can say is this, when the film ended I got a free beer so I'm glad I went, but not so glad I spent fifteen dollars on my ticket to be told to shut the f*** up for asking the director a question. Peace.

I bought this game on an impulse buy from walmart. I am glad I did. It was very entertaining listening to Sean Connery and playing the game. I thought the graphics were the best I have ever seen in a movie/game remake. The bonus levels were very hard! The sniper one I think was too hard, it made me so frustrated I didn't play the game for a week and a half. There were too many people shooting at you with nothing to hide behind or life to handle it. <br /><br />The only thing I might change was the upgrade system. I didn't notice any difference from un-upgraded equipment to the upgraded, such as buying an armor upgrade didn't seem to make the armor stronger or more filling on my life meter. I really liked the Q copter. I think the developers did a good job.

No, this hilariously horrible 70's made-for-TV horror clinker isn't about a deadly demonically possessed dessert cake. Still, this exceptionally awful, yet undeniably amusing and thus enjoyable cathode ray refuse reaches a breathtaking apex of absolute, unremitting silliness and atrociousness that's quite tasty in a so-execrable-it's-downright-awesome sort of way. Richard Crenna, looking haggard and possibly inebriated, and Yvette Mimieux, who acts as if she never got over the brutal rape she endured in "Jackson County Jail," sluggishly portray a disgustingly nice and respectable suburbanite couple whose quaint, dull, sleepy small town existence gets ripped asunder when the cute German Shepard they take in as the family pet turns out to be some ancient lethal evil spirit. Pretty soon Mimieux and her two repellently cutesy kids Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann (the psychic alien moppets from the Disney "Witch Mountain" pictures) are worshiping a crude crayon drawing of the nasty, ugly canine entity in the den. Boy, now doesn't that sound really scary and disturbing? Well, scary and disturbing this laughably ludicrous claptrap sure ain't, but it sure is funny, thanks to Curtis ("Night Tide") Harrington's hopelessly weak direction, cartoonish (not so) special effects, an almost painfully risible'n'ridiculous plot, and a game cast that struggles valiantly with the absurd story (besides the leads, both Martine Beswicke and R.G. Armstrong briefly pop up as members of a Satanic cult and Victor Jory has a nice cameo as a helpful Native American shaman). Favorite scene: the malicious Mephestophelion mutt puts the whammy on Crenna, practically forcing him to stick his hand into a wildly spinning lawnmower blade. While stuck-up snobby fright film fans may hold their noses at the perfectly putrid stench of this admittedly smelly schlock, devout TV trash lovers should deem this endearingly abominable offal the boob tube equivalent to Alpo.

It is easy to tell early in this movie exactly what will happen, and who will die. It is about 4 women and a man who on a vacation. This was made during the end of the ultra Nazi seventies, when blonde women were supposedly ultra American survivors and brunettes were all deserving of death.<br /><br />This movie, like the others of that era, contrives to bring this about, and the viewer knows this. There is no mystery or suspense. The people squabble, but everything is so predictable for the prejudices of the time, it is laughable.<br /><br />The five people happen upon two savage young characters, and go nuts. Everyone is nuts, so that the director-writer team can justify their Nazi propaganda.<br /><br />For some reason, the guy is attracted to the blonde, who is really not much to look at, and ignores a super hot looking brunette that any heterosexual man would go nuts over. One must remember that in the seventies, movies were meant to appeal to women and not men.<br /><br />Totally crap and totally depressing.

Marion Davies stars in this remarkable comedy "Show People" released by MGM in 1928. Davies plays a hick from Savannah, Georgia, who arrives in Hollywood with her father (Dell Henderson). The jalopy they arrive in is a hoot - as is Davies outrageous southern costume. Davies lands a job in slapstick comedy, not what she wants, but it brings her success. She meets fellow slapstick star William Haines, who is immediately smitten with her. Well, Davies then gets a job at a more prestigious studio ("High Art Studios") and lands a job in stuffy period pieces. A handsome but fake actor (Andre Telefair) shows her the ropes of how to be the typical pretentious Hollywood star. Davies abandons her slapstick friend and father for the good life, but of course learns that is not who she really is. Marion Davies is wonderful throughout, as she - outrageously - runs the gamut of emotions required of a "serious" actress. William Haines is his usual wonderful comedic self, and there are cameos by Charles Chaplin, John Gilbert, and other famous stars of the day, including the director of the film, King Vidor. This is a silent film with a few "sound effects" as sound pictures were just coming into their own. A treasure of a film.

The performance of every actor and actress (in the film) are excellently NATURAL which is what movie acting should be; and the directing skill is so brilliantly handled on every details that I am never tired of seeing it over and over again. However, I am rather surprised to see that this film is not included in some of the actors' and director, Attenborough's credits that puzzles me: aren't they proud of making a claim that they have made such excellent, long lasting film for the audience? I am hoping I would get some answers to my puzzles from some one (possibly one of the "knowledgeable" personnel (insider) of the film.

While Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, "Row Row Row your Boat" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead of five.

Despite later claims, this early-talkie melodrama has very little in common with "Citizen Kane": It's a biopic of a ruthless but human fictional plutocrat, told in flashback but hopping around time. The scriptwriter, Preston Sturges, shows none of his later gift for sparkling dialog, and none of the myriad cinematic innovations of "Kane" are evident. Still, it's very watchable, with a young Spencer Tracy (his old-man makeup makes him look just like, well, an old Spencer Tracy) showing depth and authority, and Colleen Moore -- a little past her prime, and not physically well matched -- playing a multifaceted woman-behind-the-man. There's also Helen Vinson as one of the most treacherous femmes fatales in movie history, sending the final third into ecstatic soap-opera reverberations. The surviving print is jumpy and has missing audio snippets, and there are some plot holes left open (how would she know whose son it was if she's sleeping with both of them?), and the music is awfully hokey. For all that, I was quite fascinated.

This is the best version (so far) that you will see and the most true to the Bronte work. Dalton is a little tough to imagine as Rochester who Jane Eyre declared "not handsome". But his acting overcomes this and Zelah Clark, pretty as she is, is also a complete and believable Jane Eyre. This production is a lengthy watch but well worth it. Nearly direct quotes from the book are in the script and if you want the very first true 'romance' in literature, this is the way to see it. I own every copy of this movie and have read and re-read the original. The filming may seem a little dated now but there will never be another like this.

Apparently, the people that wrote the back of the box did not bother to watch this so-called "movie." They described "blindingly choreographed intrigue and violence." I saw no "intrigue." I instead saw a miserable attempt at dialogue in a supposed kung fu movie. I saw no "violence." At least, I saw nothing which could cause me to suspend my disbelief as to what could possibly hurt a man with "impervious" skin--but here I am perhaps revealing too much of the "plot." Furthermore, as a viewer of many and sundry films (some of which include the occasional kung fu movie), I can authoritatively say that this piece of celluloid is unwatchable. Whatever you may choose to do, I will always remain<br /><br /> Correct,<br /><br /> Jonathan Tanner <br /><br /> <br /><br />P.S. I was not blinded by the choreography.

I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake.

It's terrific when a funny movie doesn't make smile you. What a pity!! This film is very boring and so long. It's simply painfull. The story is staggering without goal and no fun.<br /><br />You feel better when it's finished.

So well made, no CGI crap. Has anyone else been on the "Jumping Crocs" tour of Darwin's Adelaide River before? Black Water was WAY realistic; Rogue was a bit cringeworthy.<br /><br />Thought the blonde chick was excellent in it - haven't really seen her before. And the other chick is a babe, she is always excellent. <br /><br />V. suspenseful - I would compare it to Jaws over any other man eating animal flick. <br /><br />Got the hole Aussie thing down pat without going OTT with struths and crikeys, as well. <br /><br />Loved it!

The Assignment is an outstanding thriller with several plot twists driven by character, rather than star turns, the need to stage special effects, obligatory romance, and endless car chases. However, there is a car chase in here, and a dandy it is. Aidan Quinn is wonderful as both the terrorist and the naval officer "recruited" to eliminate him. It is rare that a second or third tier actor, such as Quinn, is given an important starring role like this that carries a film. Usually, such a role is given to an A-list actor with box office draw, which is probably why I never heard of this film before I saw it. Donald Sutherland is great as the morally ambiguous, somewhat creepy at times, agent that recruits Quinn. Ben Kingsley is fine also as the Israeli agent. The plot is very complex and there are multiple story lines, which converge in gradual fashion toward the end, and not all at once as we're used to seeing. The paranoia and claustrophobia of these type of thrillers is captured and portrayed with both moral ambiguity and frightening intensity. The locations are convincing and effective. The soundtrack is nothing special, but rarely do we get all of the above mentioned qualities these days, without dumb and/or meaningless plot developments; unconvincing star turns; loud, annoying, music video type soundtracks; a villain that hams it up; and repeatedly a cast, costumes, and plot that cater mostly to an audience under 25. This is an outstanding thriller, which most assuredly did not get its just due upon its release. ***1/2 of 4 stars.

this is one of the finest movies i have ever seen....the stark scenery...the isolation...the ignorant bigoted people hiding behind their religion...a backdrop for some wordliness and sophistication...the acting is completely natural...but for me as a"foodie' the best is the actual choosing and preparation of the feast..i have spent time in paris and know the cuisine well...whether or not the cafe anglais really exists i don't know but i do know of similar establishments and babette's menu and choice of wines are authentic...and of course the end where despite themselves the perfect meal mellows them back to friendship is the only ending there could be..this is a 10 out of 10 film and should be seen by anyone with enough brain and taste to understand it

Set in the 1794, the second year of the French republic formed after the execution of Louis XVI, this film portrays the power struggle between the revolutionary leaders Danton (Gerard Depardieu, at his finest) and Robespierre (a commanding performance by the Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak). The moderate revolutionary Danton has returned to Paris from his country seat where he has been since being deposed as leader of the Committee of Public Safety in the previous year by Robespierre. He is opposed to "The Reign Of Terror" which has resulted in the executions of thousands of citizens, mainly by guillotine, who are thought to be opposed to the Revolution. Danton is confident of the support of the ordinary people and tries to persuade Robespierre to curb the bloodletting. But Robespierre and the Committee are afraid that the popularity of Danton will lead to them being overthrown, and put Danton and his supporters on trial for being traitors. This was the first French language film made by Andrzej Wajda after he had arrived in France from Poland. His Polish film company was closed down by the government due to his support for the Solidarity trade union, which had opposed the Polish government in the late seventies and early eighties. His previous film "Man Of Iron" (1981) had dealt with the Solidarity union and its leader Lech Walesa, and it is easy to draw comparisons between the relationship of Walesa and the Polish leader General Jaruselski, and that between Danton and Robespierre. Danton/Walesa are the voice of reason opposed to Robespierre/Jaruselski who continue dictatorial rule despite having lost the support of the people they claim to represent. The film is based on the Polish play "The Danton Affair" written by Stanislawa Przybyszewska in the 1930s, and on its release the film was criticised by some for being static and theatrical. But what the film does is to concentrate on the behind-the-scenes meetings of the Committees and the scenes in the National Assembly and the courtroom rather than the activities on the streets of Paris.

Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!

I have now seen quite a few films by Pedro Almodóvar, but this would have to be the most disappointing so far. This film seemed to lack the zaniness that is usually everywhere in his films, and the story just never got me interested. Many Almodóvar regulars appear in this film, so it's not like there was a lack of on-screen talent, but this film just seemed more serious than his other films. If there was a comedic edge to this movie, I certainly couldn't find it, and it made for one surprisingly weak movie.

I greatly enjoyed Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Robber Bride', and I was thrilled to see there was a movie version. A woman frames a cop boyfriend for her own murder, and his buddy, an ex-cop journalist, tries to clear his name by checking up on the dead woman's crazy female friends. It's fortunate that the movie script fixes Ms. Atwood's clumsy plotting by focusing on the story of these two men, victims of scheming women...<br /><br />Heh. Okay, you got me. If these guys are mentioned in the book, and I'm pretty sure they're entirely made up for the movie, I'll eat the dust cover of my hardback copy. Apparently, the three main female characters of the novel aren't enough to carry the movie. Zenia's manipulations aren't interesting unless we see them happen to a man, and a man's life is screwed up. Roz, Charis, and Toni tell their stories -- to a man. Because it's not important if a man doesn't hear them.<br /><br />I liked the characters in the book. It hurts to see them pushed off to the side for a man's story. I normally do not look for feminist angles on media, and I tried to enjoy the movie as is. If I hadn't read the book, I might have enjoyed the movie a lot more. So if you like the cop and the ex-cop, and you want to read more about them, you're out of luck. Read the novel, if you want to enjoy luscious prose and characterization subtly layered through a plot. It's the same plot: the movie excavated it, ironed it, and sprinkled it with male angst. It's like Zenia's revenge on Margaret Atwood.

this movie gets a 10 because there is a lot of gore in it.who cares about the plot or the acting.this is an Italian horror movie people so you know you can't expect much from the acting or the plot.everybody knows fulci took footage from other movies and added it to this one.since i never seen any of the movies that he took footage from it didn't matter to me.the Italian godfather of gore out done himself with this movie.this is one of the goriest Italian movies you will ever see.no gore hound should be without this movie in their horror movie collection.buy this movie no matter what it is a horehounds dream come true.

Ingrid Bergman, playing dentist Walter Matthau's faithful receptionist who harbors a little crush on her boss, is absolutely wonderful in this film. She handles the witty repartee in the script with aplomb and steals a terrific scene where she and Goldie Hawn talk in a record booth (Ingrid's monologue is a front, but her face tells you she believes in it with all her heart). Matthau is an odd choice for the leading man (he's too old for Goldie Hawn and too unrefined for Bergman, not to mention too unfocused to be a dentist), but I liked the way he tries hard to please Goldie and stumbles around trying to free himself from a lie. Hawn (who won a Supporting Oscar) is just as fresh and bubbly as she is today. This bedroom farce isn't terribly sophisticated (and faintly reminds one of "Any Wednesday" besides), but it's a welcome relief from the noisy, teen-oriented comedies they turn out today. "Cactus Flower" is a lovely sigh! *** from ****

"A bored television director is introduced to the black arts and astral projection by his girlfriend. Learning the ability to separate his spirit from his body, the man finds a renewed interest in his life and a sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, the man discovers while he is sleeping, his spirit leaves his body and his uncontrolled body roams the streets in a murderous rampage," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />The synopsis isn't entirely correct, as it turns out.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie opens with a dizzying "out-of-body" example of handsome director Winston Rekert (as Paul Sharpe)'s newly discovered "astral body" experience; it also foreshadows an upcoming dogfight. Young Andrew Bednarski (as Matthew Sharpe), being a kid, draws pictures of "The Blue Man", as his murder spree begins. Handsome detective John Novak (as Stewart Kaufman) discovers the victims are connected to Mr. Rekert. Mr. Novak's investigation leads to the supernatural; a prime example of which is Karen Black (as Janus), with whom Rekert fears he is falling in love.<br /><br />Several in the cast perform well; but, "The Blue Man" winds up tying itself up in a knot. Aka "Eternal Evil", its unsatisfying story tries to be far too clever for its own good.

Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ?

This tale based on two Edgar Allen Poe pieces ("The Fall of the House of Usher", "Dance of Death" (poem) ) is actually quite creepy from beginning to end. It is similar to some of the old black-and-white movies about people that meet in an old decrepit house (for example, "The Cat and the Canary", "The Old Dark House", "Night of Terror" and so on). Boris Karloff plays a demented inventor of life-size dolls that terrorize the guests. He dies early in the film (or does he ? ) and the residents of the house are subjected to a number of terrifying experiences. I won't go into too much detail here, but it is definitely a must-see for fans of old dark house mysteries.<br /><br />Watch it with plenty of popcorn and soda in a darkened room.<br /><br />Dan Basinger 8/10

I am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie! Jack Frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by A-pix entertainment, and without exception, everything this company deals with is pure crap! First, and this is very important, never ever watch this movie sober! Why would you? Unlike many other entertaingly bad movies, this one I feel was made intentionally bad. I just can't get over how fake the snowman is, which is why its always shown only briefly, the way it moves is the best! This movie is Waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Michael Keaton piece of crap, becuz that was made too be a good movie, and that version is as bad as this.

"Revolt of the Zombies" proves that having the same director revamp and recycle an idea doesn't necessarily make lightning strike twice.<br /><br />The Halperin brothers, responsible for the horror classic "White Zombie", made this trite piece of garbage a mere few years later to cash in on its popularity and even recycled close-ups of Lugosi's eyes from that previous film. There was a court battle with the "White Zombie" film's rights owners, who didn't want the Halperins to be able to use the word 'zombie' in this title. That word was the only thing that could help this film, because, as everyone knows, bad films can make much more money simply by having the word 'Zombie' appear in the title. Knowing what Victor Halperin was capable of a few years before only makes this uninteresting film more insulting. It seems he never directed another horror film after this debacle. The zombies here seem not to be true walking dead, but simply hypnotism victims.<br /><br />Wanna create a mind-controlled army of zombies? Be ready to crack a few eggs, including your own.<br /><br />THE LAME PLOT: Man falls in love with scheming woman who plays with his heart and becomes engaged to him only to make his friend, whom she loves, jealous. This sends man into a spiral of madness in which he tries using zombie mind-control techniques to change things to his advantage in an attempt to win over a woman who isn't worth spit.<br /><br />This includes one of the most blatantly obvious plot developments I've ever seen. You'd have to be blind or stupid not to see the ending coming. The acting isn't even good. This movie makes the racially insensitive "King of the Zombies" (which appeared on the same double bill DVD I bought) seems like an atmospheric horror masterpiece by comparison and reminds us that not every black and white film is a classic. It makes the atomic age sci-fi alien zombie cheese fest "Invisible Invaders" seem like a serious drama. This is one big ball of cheese so ridiculously melodramatic it could probably make many a Korean film fan twitch (South Korean films are often known for their use of melodrama). The credits list the ironically named company Favorite Films. I'm not sure whose favorite film this would be, but they're obviously an idiot.<br /><br />Not recommended for fans of: zombies, romance, or classic films.

The complaints are valid, to me the biggest problem is that this soap opera is too aimed for women. I am okay with these night time soaps, like Grey's Anatomy, or Ugly Betty, or West Wing, because there are stories that are interesting even with the given that they will never end. However, when the idea parallels the daytime soaps aimed at just putting hunky men (Taye Diggs, Tim Daly, and Chris Lowell) into sexual tension and romps, and numerous ridiculous difficult situations in a so-called little hospital, it seems like General Hospital...or a female counterpart to Baywatch. That was what men wanted and they had it, so if this is what women want so be it, but the idea that this is a high brow show (or something men will watch) is unrealistic.

This movie was one of the best movies that I have seen this year. I didn't see any cameos in the movie, but it is still pretty good. It is similar to Anchorman in the humor department, but I think this is a better put together movie. It actually has a point. If you are going to see a whole bunch of T&A you will be disappointed. Just a well put together movie!!!! If you have nothing to do for the day or you need a lot of humor, you will find this to be a really good movie. I definitely think that Ebert and Roeper's review of this movie is right on. I mean, I don't really like Ebert on most movies, but this is the movie that I will agree about. The movie contains a good enough story that it is actually believable that these type of people are out there. There is definitely something to be said about how they treat virginity in this movie. Yea, sure, you get laughed at when it is found out about, but it still suggests that you wait. Steve did a wonderful job of portraying the person that he did in this movie and yet, it is still funny.

I remember seeing this film in the mid 80's thought it a well paced and well acted piece. I now work quite often in Berkeley Square and the had to get a copy of DVD to remind myself how little the area has changed, although my office is newish it just 30 seconds away from "the bank". Even Jack Barclays car dealership is still there selling Bentleys and Rolls Royces.<br /><br />It's look like the DVD is due a Region 2 release soon. The region 1 copy I is very poor quality. Let's hope they've cleaned it up.<br /><br />Only the slightly dodgy escape sequence from the court spoils what would otherwise be a great film but I guess is in line with the caper tag the film goes with.

Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema.

Luckily for Bill Murray this is such a light-weight project since he pretty much has to carry it. Meatballs is the story of low-rent Camp Northstar and how its counselors deal with the campers as well as one another. Then there is much made of their wealthy rivals from across the lake named Camp Mohawk which culminates in a two-day Olympiad competition. Above it all is Bill Murray clowning around and making a pretty memorable film debut.<br /><br />The film is sprinkled with medium-sized laughs, chuckles, and more than a few guffaws along the way. The biggest laughs come from the pranks played on the nerdy camp director. Three of them involve the counselors moving his bed outside in various locations while he's sleeping. Morty, or "Micky" as everyone calls him, wakes up along the side of a road, strung up in some trees several feet above the ground, and finally floating on a raft in the middle of the lake! There are also some funny moments involving the counselors hitting on one another, but this is a PG rated film with little in the way of raunchiness.<br /><br />The film takes a serious note involving a shy camper named Rudy who is played by Chris Makepeace. Of course it's up to Murray to teach the kid how to open up, and give him the confidence he needs to run a marathon during the Olympiad. The sentimentality of Rudy's situation seems tacked on to a great degree. Notice how when Murray first sees the kid sitting alone in the grass after getting off the bus he tells him, "you must be the short depressed kid we ordered." Makes you wonder if that line was really in the script or Murray was just ad-libbing while the cameras were rolling. In other words, Murray might as well have said to Makepeace, "you must be that actor we hired to play the stereotypical lonely kid you see in most summer camp films who doesn't fit in." But before it's all over, Murray's performance makes this plot device more than bearable. He really seems to have some good chemistry with Makepeace.<br /><br />The film culminates with the games between the two rival camps. Very little of the events we are shown are even slightly believable, but "it just doesn't matter". This is a pretty good film on many levels. Don't let the absurd 5.6 rating this film is currently getting scare you off. Murray will keep you laughing throughout. Just be warned..... avoid the sequels!!!! Especially the one with Corey Feldman!! 8 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.

"The Danish Bladerunner" is boldly stated on the box. Are you kidding me?! This film is a complete drag. When I'm thirsty and go for a soda in the kitchen, I usually pause the vcr, so I won't miss anything. Not this time. I actually found myself looking long and hard in the fridge, just so I wouldn't have to go back. Why the hell is there not ONE sciencefiction-scriptwriter out there who has the vaguest clue about how computers work? It's mindboggling. One of the premises of film, is that our hero (who's a hacker), has a little computerassistant to help him (the Microsoft Office paperclip finally caught on in the future). When he loses the assistant in the movie, he's helpless and can't get into any computers. HE'S A HACKER! It's like saying, that you can't drive your car, if you don't have your lucky "driving-cap" on. I won't even go into the lightning-effect when he recieves electroshock...

This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.<br /><br />This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!<br /><br />This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.

Anyone who thinks Kool Moe Dee, Carol Alt, and Corey Feldman comprise a list of good actors must be smoking something I'd love to try sometime. Where to begin: lousy soundtrack, hammy acting, "action" in places. This is the typical amateurishly written hack fodder that washed-up has-been and never-was's love to star in. I actually felt embarrassed for the "stars" in this "film". The only thespian missing to top this turd was Gary Coleman, who if he would have been in the movie, would have made it at least somewhat howlingly bad, rather than just plain bad.<br /><br />There was one part in the film where Carol Alt screamed, "DO YOU THINK I'M AN IDIOT?!?" Yes, Carol, I do, your agent does, and PLEASE for the love of all that is decent and holy... GO AWAY and stop degrading yourself like this! This film is something Anna Nicole Smith would take part in.<br /><br />I would tell you what the plot was, but that would be one more sentence fragment to this article, plus my mind drifted many times during the movie anyway, so I barely paid attention.

This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.<br /><br />I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.<br /><br />It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: "Let's remake a classic with worse everything!"

I find it very intriguing that Lee Radziwill, Jackie Kennedy's sister and the cousin of these women, would encourage the Maysles' to make "Big Edie" and "Little Edie" the subject of a film. They certainly could be considered the "skeletons" in the family closet. The extra features on the DVD include several contemporary fashion designers crediting some of their ideas to these oddball women. I'd say that anyone interested in fashion would find the discussion by these designers fascinating. (i.e. "Are they nuts? Or am I missing something?"). This movie is hard to come by. Netflix does not have it. Facets does, though.

C'mon guys some previous reviewers have nearly written a novel commenting on this episode. It's just an old 60's TV show ! This episode of Star Trek is notable because of the most serious babe (Yeoman Barrow's) ever used on Star Trek and the fact that it was filmed in a real outdoor location. Unlike the TNG and Voyager series which were totally confined to sound stages.<br /><br />This use of an outdoor location (and babe) gives proper depth and an almost film like quality to a quite ordinary episode of this now dated and very familiar show.<br /><br />Except a few notable exceptions i.e "The city on the edge of forever" , "assignment Earth" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" The old series of Star Trek needs to be seriously moth-balled and put out of it's boring misery. Half a dozen good episodes from 79 is quite a poor batting average.<br /><br />This is typical of the boring stuff Gene Roddenberry produced back then actually, contrary to popular belief where some people worshiped the ground he walked on, he actually made a LOT of rubbish! He doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as Irwin Allen for example.<br /><br />Just look at the set of the bridge of the Enterprise from a modern point of view. They used wobbly plywood for the floor, cafeteria chairs with plastic backs and cheap cardboard above the instrument panels. You can clearly see the folds in the paper ! Every expense spared or what !

I just watched this movie on it's premier night out of curiosity and sheer nostalgia. I liked (not loved) "Mork & Mindy" as a kid, mostly for Robin William's zany energetic performance. This movie made me remember why. Was the original show great? Not really, but Robin certainly was. Which brings me to this movie.<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised, expecting nothing more than a paint by numbers chronological retelling of the show (which in a way it was). But, of course, the real focus was on Robin. It was interesting to see Robin's journey from struggling street jester to national t.v star, and how such a drastic difference affected him and his long suffering wife. And my hat is off to star Chris Diamantopoulos as he portrayed Mr. Williams with integrity, sensitivity, and heart; not just a cute impression, although it was even dead-on. (On an unrelated note, I noticed that Robin's struggles were in some ways similar to Andy Kaufman, who was under-appreciated by network t.v. and held back creatively, but that's the "Taxi" behind the scenes biopic.)<br /><br />All in all, this was a very enjoyable flick, in which I felt I got to know a little more of the man behind the Orkan. The acting was solid by all- never melodramatic like I suspected- and the story moved along well. Performances that were particularly good were by those who played Garry Marshall and John Belushi (the scene in which Belushi heckles Robin was a hoot!). Not a great masterpiece by any means (I would have liked to have seen a tad more about Pam Dawber), but definitely watchable, especially for those Robin Williams and "Mork & Mindy" fans out there. Nanoo, nanoo!

I caught this film on AZN on cable. It sounded like it would be a good film, a Japanese "Green Card". I can't say I've ever disliked an Asian film, quite the contrary. Some of the most incredible horror films of all time are Japanese and Korean, and I am a HUGE fan of John Woo's Hong Kong films. I an not adverse to a light hearted films, like Tampopo or Chung King Express (two of my favourites), so I thought I would like this. Well, I would rather slit my wrists and drink my own blood than watch this laborious, badly acted film ever again.<br /><br />I think the director Steven Okazaki must have spiked the water with Quaalude, because no one in this film had a personality. And when any of the characters DID try to act, as opposed to mumbling a line or two, their performance came across as forced and incredibly fake. I honestly did not think that anyone had ever acted before...the ONLY person who sounded genuine was Brenda Aoki.. I find it amazing that this is promoted as a comedy, because I didn't laugh once. Even MORE surprising is that CBS morning news called this "a refreshing breath of comedy". It was neither refreshing, nor a breath of comedy. And the ending was very predictable, the previous reviewer must be an idiot to think such things.<br /><br />AVOID this film unless you want to see a boring predictable plot line and wooden acting. I actually think that "Spike of Bensonhurst" is a better acted film than this...and I walked out half way through that film!

Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).<br /><br />Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called "Bloody Shootout" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree – Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her – Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls "a hamburger without the fries"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.<br /><br />Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.<br /><br />Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.

Ye Lou's film Purple Butterfly pits a secret organization (Purple Butterfly) against the Japanese forces in war torn Shanghai. Ding Hui (Zhang Ziyi) and her ex-lover Hidehiko Itami (Toru Nakamura) find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict after a chance meeting.<br /><br />I agree with the reviewer from Paris. The film substitutes a convoluted, semi-historical conflict for a plot, without giving the audience a single reason to care about the characters or their causes. The sudden time shifting doesn't help matters as it appears completely unwarranted and pointless. Normally I don't mind dark movies, but the absence of light, the bone-jarringly shaky camera footage, and the generally bad film-making techniques really make this a tough film to watch and stay interested in. I also agree with the viewer from Georgia that this film "has a chaotic editing style and claustrophobic cinematography", but I don't think that helps the movie. The backdrop to the film is one of the most potent events of the 20th Century, and I don't believe you can do it any justice by editing it as if it were a Michael Bay film. The overly melodramatic moments don't add to its watchability.<br /><br />The actors are all suitably melancholy. Zhang Ziyi once again shows that she has an exceptionally limited acting range as she spends the entire movie doing what she seems to do best in all her films, brooding and looking generally annoyed. However, at least she adds some variety to this role by chainsmoking and engaging in the worst love-making scene since Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton in The Terminator.<br /><br />All in all, a very disappointing film, especially seeing as how it comes from the director of Suzhou He. 2/10

After hearing about George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece for all of my life, I'm now 37, but never having read the book, I am totally confused as to what I've just seen.<br /><br />I am very familiar with the concepts covered in the novel, as i'm sure most are, but only through hearsay and quotes. Without this limited knowledge this film would have been a complete mystery, and even with it I'm still no more educated about the story of 1984 than I was before I watched it.<br /><br />On the plus side...<br /><br />The cinematography is amazing, Hurt & Burton deliver fine performances and the overall feel of the movie is wonderfully grim and desolate. The prostitute scene was a fantastically dark piece of film making.<br /><br />Now for the down sides, and there are plenty...<br /><br />There is a war going on, (at least as far as the propaganda is concerned), but why & with who? Nothing is explained. There are a couple of names bandied about (Eurasia etc), but they mean nothing without explanation.<br /><br />Who is Winston? what does he do? where does he come from? where does he work? why is he changing news reports? why isn't he on the front line? Why doesn't he eat the food in the canteen? What is that drink he's drinking through the entire film? Why is he so weak & ill? Why isn't he brainwashed like the rest of them? What's the deal with his mother & sister? What happened to his father? A little back story would have been nice, no scrub that, essential for those like myself that haven't read the book. Without it, this is just a confusing and hard to follow art-house movie that constantly keeps you guessing at what is actually going on.<br /><br />The soundtrack was dis-jointed and badly edited and the constant chatter from the Big Brother screens swamps the dialogue in places making it even harder to work out whats going on. I accept that this may have been an artistic choice but it's very annoying all the same.<br /><br />Also, I know this has been mentioned before, but why all the nudity? It just seemed totally gratuitous and felt like it had been thrown in there to make up for the lack of any plot coverage.<br /><br />I personally can't abide the way Hollywood feels it has to explain story lines word for word these days. We are not all brainwashed simpletons, but this is a few steps too far the other way. I can only imagine that it totally relies on the fact that you've read the book because if this film really is the 'literal translation' that I've seen many people say, I would find it very hard to understand why 1984 is hailed as the classic it is.<br /><br />There's no denying that it was light years ahead of it's time and has pretty much predicted every change in our society to date, (maybe this has been a sort of bible to the powers that be?), but many sci-fi novelists have done the same without leaving gaping holes in the storyline.<br /><br />I guess I have to do what I should have done from the start and buy a copy of the book if i'm to make any sense out of this.<br /><br />All in all, very disappointed in something I've waited for years to watch.

This cute animated short features two comic icons - Betty Boop and Henry.<br /><br />Henry is the bald, slightly portly boy from the comics who never speaks.<br /><br />Well here he does speak!<br /><br />He wants to get a puppy from Betty Boop's pet store, and when he is left to mind the store - some hilarious hijinks ensue.<br /><br />Betty sings a song about pets, Henry gets in a battle with birds and a monkey, but everything works out in the end.

I just got back from this free screening, and this "Osama Witch Project" is the hands-down worst film I've seen this year, worse than even "Catwoman" - which had the decency to at least pass itself off as fiction.<br /><br />In "September Tapes," a "film crew" of "documentary journalists" heads to Afghanistan - despite being thoroughly unprepared for the trip, the conditions and, oh yeah, the psychotic and ridiculous vendetta of their filmmaker leader to avenge his wife's death on Sept. 11 - to track down Osama bin Laden.<br /><br />They "made" eight tapes on their journey, which now "document" their travels and, of course, their attempts to kill the terrorist leader. (The eight tapes, thankfully, all end at points significant in the narrative, which is convenient for a "documentary.")<br /><br />The psychotic, idiotic protagonist - who is given to long, significant speeches that he probably learned watching "MacGyver" - cares nothing for his own life or the life of his innocent crew as he gets them further and further into danger through a series of completely dumb mishaps. I don't know why he didn't just wear a sign on his back that said "Shoot me."<br /><br />The crew's translator, supposedly their sensible voice-of-reason, does little more than whine and gets baffled as the idiot hero leads them into doom. <br /><br />You wish they'd brought along someone on their trip to call them all morons.<br /><br />Around "Tape 4," I began rooting for the terrorists to shoot the film crew.

I remember seeing this film in the theater in 1984 when I was 6 years-old (you do the math). I absolutely loved it. I was Tarzan for the 2 weeks after seeing it (climbing the furniture, jumping around making monkey sounds). It started a fascination with Tarzan and monkeys, but oddly enough a longer lasting love for Christopher Lambert (keep in mind that I saw Highlander very shortly after this). 1984 was the last time I saw that film, until about a month ago. It happened to be on cable as I was getting ready for bed at 3:30 am and even though it was late and I was tired and I had to be at work at 9:00 am, I stayed up to watch this movie that I loved as a kid. <br /><br />Upon viewing it I realized that it was not that great of a film and even odder then that, that Andie MacDowell's voice was dubbed by someone else. Ian Holme was of course solid as usual, and surprisingly the monkey suits still kind of held up, but what was most surprising was how good Lambert was as Tarzan. He was great! The depth he managed to capture in so few lines, his primal body language and most importantly his ability to bring this character through its extremely large ark, were just amazing.<br /><br />As I stated earlier I am Lambert fan, but I'm used to Highlander, The Hunted and Fortress. In this film he was really quite good and it is a shame that he never got a chance to portray a character with such depth again.<br /><br />So to make a short story way too long, I was a little disappointed that the film was not that good, but I was glad to see that Lambert was good and I do not regret staying up until 6:00am to see it.

A family is traveling through the mid West. There's widower Ben (Charles Bateman), his girlfriend Nicky (Ahna Capri) and Ben's little daughter K.T. (Geri Reischl). Then hit a town named Hillsboro where everyone acts more than a little strangely. Their car breaks down and they're forced to stay. They soon find out a witches coven has a spell over the town and is up to incredible evil.<br /><br />The story is not that good. People just figure things out of nothing and they just happen to find out where the witches are at the end. Also there are a lot of loopholes left dangling at the end. The acting is pretty poor too. Bateman and Capri are bland and everybody else is about the same. Only old pros Strother Martin and L.Q. Jones give good performances. Still this movie does work. It forgoes blood and gore (there's some but this is PG) and manges to work with some very creepy visuals and atmosphere. The acting hampers a lot of it but it still works. Martin especially chews the scenery in his role. I can't explain exactly why I (sort of) like this movie but it did work on me. It's a quiet kind of horror that isn't made anymore. Hardly a masterwork but this deserves to be rediscovered. A 7.

Francis Ford Coppola wrote and directed this stunningly personal story of a married woman's flight from her husband--and the reality that perhaps the youthful glee and excitement of her younger years are behind her. We learn little about this woman's marriage except that she has been feeling her independence slipping away as of late; she's also recently learned she's pregnant, which has further complicated her heart (she doesn't want to be a complacent wifey, despite the maternal way she speaks to her husband over the phone). She meets two men on her journey: a former college football hero who--after an accident during a game--has been left with permanent brain damage, and a sexy, strutting motorcycle cop who has a great deal of trouble in his own life. The clear, clean landscapes (as photographed by the very talented Wilmer Butler) are astutely realized, as are the characters. Shirley Knight, James Caan, and Robert Duvall each deliver strong, gripping performances, most especially since these are not very likable people in conventional terms. Some scenes (such as Knight's first call home from a pay-phone, or her first night alone with Caan where they play 'Simon Says') are almost too intimate to watch. Coppola toys with reality, turning the jagged memories of his characters into scrapbooks we've been made privy to. He allows scenes to play out, yet the editing is quite nimble and the film is never allowed to get too heavy (there are at least two or three very frisky moments). It's a heady endeavor--so much so that the picture was still being shown at festivals nearly five years later. Some may shun Coppola's unapologetic twisting of events in order to underline the finale with bitter irony, however the forcefulness and drive behind the picture nearly obliterate its shortcomings. *** from ****

This movie was not very well directed. they almost totally disregarded the book.I guess they were trying 2 save time. the only upside 2 me was that the actor who played finny was cute. Some of the dialog between the main characters appeared a little gay which was not the case in the book. Major parts of the book were once again chopped out.You lost the over all effect it was not as haunting as the book and left me lacking severely. Also the strong language although it was brief was very unnecessary. Also i was surprised ( not pleasantly) by a new character that was no where in the book.One of my favorite characters (leper) was poorly interpreted and portrayed. He seemed more sinister in the movie than the real leper was in the book. Over all disappointing.

The buzz for this film has always been about the fabulous graphics that make Kevin Bacon disappear. Sadly, they stopped there. They should have continued to make the script disappear, then the silly set, and finally every visible element of this film. Because, there's nothing else there to show.<br /><br />Gary Thompson and Andrew Marlowe are listed as the writing credits for this film. I don't really think they exist. I think they bought this script at "Scripts-R-Us", where you buy a standard blank "Monster Movie" script and just fill in the blanks. There's a monster stalking us. Let's split up. (They actually "let's split up" in this movie). Hit Alien/Giant-bug/Monster/Invisible-man with crowbar. Not dead yet. Burn Huge-rabbit/Shark/Invisible-man in unsurvivable fire. Not dead yet. You know, the standard stuff. Even the minimum number of elements that were specific to an invisible man movie (IR glasses, spraying with something like paint) were handled badly. <br /><br />What is sad is that there were lots of possibilities for this to be a fascinating movie. They psychological issues for the subject, the deterioration of the mind due to the process, treating an invisible subject, and many other ideas were touched on for usually less than 2 seconds and would have been far more interesting. Had there been any desire to save Kevin Bacon in the end, it would have been a much better movie. All in all, it stunk.<br /><br />I would mention some of the incredibly stupid elements of the ending of the movie, but I don't want to do any spoilers. Suffice it to say that these characters are so stupid they don't think about pulling the plug on a machine rather than...

A young girl becomes a war-time marine's pen-pal, and when he visits at war's end expecting someone a bit more "available," comic complications ensue. All ultimately works out well, naturally, but not before everyone involved has thoroughly chewed the scenery. Errol Flynn's dead-on impression of Humphrey Bogart from "Casablanca" is a highlight, as are various send-ups of his own swashbuckling image (the "jumping" scene in the kitchen with Forrest Tucker is a riot). It is Tucker, though, who "tucks" the movie under his arm, lowers his head and barrels over the goal line. He demonstrates the comic flair more fully developed twenty years later in "F-Troop" and imparts a liveliness and energy that Flynn repeatedly plays off to raise his own performance. Eleanor Parker does a fine job as the woman being pursued, and little Patti Brady charms as Tucker's actual pen-pal friend. A fine, lightweight "coming home" comedy in a genteel setting that children and romantics of all ages should find entertaining.

This movie is a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses. <br /><br />Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film. <br /><br />All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family.

Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****

What seemed at first just another introverted French flick offering no more than baleful sentiment became for me, on second viewing, a genuinely insightful and quite satisfying presentation.<br /><br />Spoiler of sorts follows.<br /><br />Poor Cedric; he apparently didn't know what hit him. Poor audience; we were at first caught up in what seemed a really beautiful and romantic story only to be led back and forth into the dark reality of mismatch. These two guys just didn't belong together from their first ambiguous encounter. As much as Mathieu and Cedric were sexually attracted to each other, the absence of a deeper emotional tie made it impossible for Mathieu, an intellectual being, to find fulfillment in sharing life with someone whose sensibilities were more attuned to carnival festivities and romps on the beach.<br /><br />On a purely technical note, I loved the camera action in this film. Subtitles were totally unnecessary, even though my French is "presque rien." I could watch it again without the annoying English translation and enjoy it even more. This was a polished, very professionally made motion picture. Though many scenes seem superfluous, I rate it nine out of ten.

I don't think I've ever gave something a 1/10 rating, but this one easily gets the denomination. I find it hard just to sit through one of his jokes. It's not just that the jokes are so bad, but combine that with the fact that Carson Daily has zero charisma, can't set up or finish a punchline, and you've got a late night comedy recipe that will really turn your stomach.<br /><br />I have watched the show, never in its entirety, but many times still. It just creeps up on me after Conan. I usually watch a minute or two just to see if Carson daily is still the worst talk show host ever.<br /><br />Actually if you ever do see him interviewing a guest, it's just that, an interview. I feel so sorry every time he has a guest on and their confused smiles try to mask their body language that's screaming, "get me the hell away from this freak!" I do recommend watching the show, not for a laugh, but to ponder, how he got on the air and what he's still doing there. Watch as much as you can, I think you will find its complete awkwardness...interesting.

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

From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.<br /><br />Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.<br /><br />The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.<br /><br />It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.<br /><br />Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.<br /><br />Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.

I've always enjoyed films that depict life as it is. Life sometimes has boring patches, no real plot, and not necessarily a happy ending. "A River Runs Through It" is the perfect name for this film (and Norman Maclean's novel). Life ebbs and flows like a river, and it has it's rough spots, but it is a wonderful trip.<br /><br />Robert Redford brings a lot to the film. His narration has a friendly feel that fits the picture perfectly. As a director, he is restrained and calm, and captures some incredibly beautiful scenes. As for the acting, Craig Sheffer and Brad Pitt work surprising well as brothers. I don't know quite how to describe Tom Skerritt and Brenda Blethyn's performances, except that they truly feel real. "A River Runs Through It" is a wonderful film.<br /><br />8.6 out of 10

The story is very trustworthy and powerful. The technical side of the movie is quite fine.. even the directing of it. The main problem is with the castings, that turned that movie into almost another local and regular cliché with a great lack of impact and even greater lack of impression. Beside the small role of the father, Rafael (played impressively by Asi Dayan), all other actors were unfortunately not in their best. The role of the elder Blind girl, played by Taly Sharon, was fresh but without any intensity as the leading role. therefore the figure she acted had become mild and low profile. There were moments and episodes that looked more like a rehearsal then a real movie. But after all it's a good point to begin from and to make big improvements in the future.

This movie was not so much promoted here in Greece,even though it got good actors , great script and rather good photograph was not a so called "blockbuster" movie in my Country. The movie itself is very powerful,it's about the hard time that a newcomer had to go through when he returns in his home-village after been released from a 5yo prison time(drugs) The end is rather sad.... Mourikis is trying to keep up with his part and he handles it pretty well... Lambropoulou is great and very sexy in a strange way and of course Hatzisavvas is for one more time close to excellency... 7 out of 10 because very few Greek movies can make such an impression!

MYSTERY MEN has got to be THE stupidest film I've ever seen, but what a film! I thought it was fabulous, excellent and impressive. It was funny, well-done and nice to see ridiculous Super Heroes for a change! And being able to pull it off! This was great! I'll definitely watch it again!

You know that mouthwash commercial where the guy has a mouth full of Listerine or whatever it is and he's trying really hard to keep from spitting it up into the sink? That's a great metaphor for this movie. I kept watching, even though it was really difficult. But keeping mouthwash in your mouth will leave you with a minty fresh feeling. This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should have spit it out when I had the chance.<br /><br />The premise is corny enough to be fun. For the first time in like a thousand years, Gargoyles have returned to Romania, and all of the priests who knew how to fight and kill these things are long dead. It's up to Michael Pare and some other secret agents to get to the bottom of things before the Gargoyles run amok. Unfortunately, the premise is completely lost in bad dialog and less than enthusiastic acting on the part of the human leads. The best acting is done by the CG Gargoyles.<br /><br />In the end, this movie feels like a poor man's Van Helsing. If you check your brain at the door, this might get you through a dreary Monday night. I gave it 3 out of 10 stars.

I can't believe it that was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i laughed a couple of times. ( probably because of how stupid it was ) If someone paid me to see that movie again i wouldn't. the plot was so horrible , it made no sense , and the acting was so bad that i couldn't even tell if they were trying. that movie was terrible rating: F

This is one of a rarity of movies, where instead of a bowl of popcorn one should watch it with a bottle of vodka. To be completely honest we are a group of people who actually know the man, Mo Ogrodnik, and decided to drink ourselves stupid to this film.<br /><br />The cinematic aspect of Wolfgang Something's photography seems to have left out both close-ups and breasts. Mo and Wolfgang's collaborative effort revealed the passion of the two actresses, plastic peens holding passion. There's also beetle banging. As Violet would have put it: "This (plastic peen) goes up your butt". The rat porn and subsequent rat smashing is awesome. <br /><br />Alright. So if you are still reading, let us explain who we are. Mo Ogrodnik teaches at NYU and we are a group of her students, who, finishing a film class with her, decided to get poop- faced and watch here directorial debut. She also wrote Uptown Girls. I can't tell you how much that's been hammered into our skulls. So this movie is quite the experience. At the very bottom of this post will be a drinking game we created for this movie. <br /><br />About 13 minutes into this game, none of us could see straight. The sheer amount of Dido's in the first thirty minutes created enough reasons to drink to pacify an elephant.There was something secretly pleasurable about seeing two underage girls hit on a Kurt Cobain lookalike with absolutely no context, save for his mysterious scene at the convenience store where he was oh-so-naturally reading a local newspaper. Because that's what we all do. The heart-shaped glasses were delightfully derivative of Lolita. And something about that provocative scene of the nude chin-up boy suggests the director's history of homosexual pornographic experiments. We wish we were kidding.<br /><br />Enough intellectual contemplation. ON TO THE DRINKING GAME! This will ensure that the viewing experience is a positive one. It's very simple, and very likely to send at least one member of your party to immediate care.<br /><br />The Mo Ogrodnik/Ripe Drinking Game: 1. Every time you see anything related to pornography, take a drink. 2. Every time you see auteur Mo Ogrodnik's name appear, take a drink. 3. Sex. 4. (plastic peen) require two drinks. 5. Any time somebody points a gun at another character, take a drink. -At this point you will probably need to refill/pee pee any remaining sobriety from your body.- 6. Any time there is blood (INCLUDING "LADY BLOOD"), please take a sip! 7. The underused hula-hoop girl requires one drink per second. 8. Gratuitous use of the "magic black man" requires one drink. 9. If you can't figure out the through-line, KEEP DRINKING, Beyotch. 10. Whenever you are able to predict a line, take a drink. Trust us. It's easy. <br /><br />That's it, internet! Keep drinking, and try not to get riped.<br /><br />-Hawaiian Smirnoff Punch, Jr.

Even though I'm quite young, The Beatles are my ABSOLUTELY FAVOURITE band! I never had the chance to hear their music as it was releases but have loved them since I can remember.<br /><br />It's the sort of film that is worth trying the once. I can see why it wasn't released in the cinema but it is certainly a great film to put on the TV. I was flicking through my TV guide and happened to see this film, it didn't much details except something like, 'John Lennon and Paul McCartney meet after The Beatles have broken up, Jared Harris Stars'. I'd never heard of him (he played John) or Aiden Quinn who played Paul. However they are certainly underestimated actors!<br /><br />The film had a slow start but as it developed, I could see how well Quinn but especially Harris played their characters. As a huge fan, I sort of know what the real Lennon and McCartney are like. The script was brilliant and Harris got Lennon's accent, personality and mannerisms spot on! Quinn played McCartney quite well but sometimes went into his Irish accent. THe make-up artists made them look excellent.<br /><br />THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE COUNTED AS A *SPOILER*:<br /><br />As I mentioned before, it got off to a slow start but soon developed and became quite an emotional film. I found the bit in the park a total waste of time and quite out of character for both of the musicians. As for Lennon's rude line in the Italian restaurant, totally unnecessary. The ending was very poignant and brings a tear to my eye whenever I watch it.<br /><br />It is quite different from the other biographical films I've seen where it's about how The Beatles got together and became famous, and those never really did the characters that well. E.g. 'Backbeat'.<br /><br />In conclusion, I would say, if you're a Beatles or John Lennon or Paul McCartney fan, give it a chance you may have pleasent surprise. At only about 95 minutes long, it's worth waiting for the film to develop.<br /><br />If anyone does know whether the meeting of 1976 really did happen please send it to the 'comments page' for this film, I'd be very interested.

An American Werewolf in London had some funny parts, but this one isn't so good. The computer werewolves are just awful: the perspective is all off, it's like seeing them through a distorting mirror. The writers step on the throat of many of their gags. American boy says to Parisian girl, "Is there a cafe' around here?" Instead of just leaving it at that, they have to have the girl sigh and respond, "This is Paris."

Originally I was a Tenacious D fan of their first album and naturally listened to a few tracks off The P.O.D. and was rather disappointed. After watching the movie, my view was changed. The movie is pretty funny from beginning to the end and found my self engaged in it even though it was really was a stupid storyline because of the attitudes that KG and Jaybles portray in the movie. <br /><br />Much more entertaining and enjoyable than movies I have seen in the theaters lately. ex. Saw III (dull and dragging), Casino Royale (way to homo-erotic) which in prior installments I have really enjoyed <br /><br />If you enjoyed Borat, you will enjoy the tale of The Greatest Band on Earth

This is just one more of those hideous films that you find on Lifetime TV which portray the abhorrent behavior of some disgusting woman in an empathetic manner. Along with other such nasty films as "The Burning Bed," "Enough," or "Monster," this film takes a disgusting criminal and attempts to show the viewer why she's not such a bad person after all. Give us a break! Here's my question to the filmmakers: If LeTourneau were a man, and Vili were a 12 year old girl, would you have made a picture sympathizing and empathizing with this person? Answer: Hell no.<br /><br />Imagine switching the genders in this film, and then you'll see just why myself and others here consider this a worthless piece of garbage. Were the genders switched, there would be no attempt to empathize with the criminal. Instead, we'd likely be treated to a portrayal of a monstrous and hideous man preying upon a young girl, his lascivious behavior landing him in prison, and his brainwashed victim suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only reason LeTourneau does not receive the same treatment in this film is by virtue of her sex.<br /><br />Let's call a spade a spade. LeTourneau is a pedophile. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts. She's a criminal who belongs in prison, and deserves our derision and contempt, but certainly not our pity or empathy.

The premise of this movie was decent enough, but with sub par acting, it was just bland and dull.<br /><br />SPOILERS The film does not work because of the nature of the death, it was accidental, so although it was a murder it wasn't like the guy set out to do it. Also through some flashbacks there is a secret that is revealed that sort of makes the events like justice to a degree. There is no emotion in this film. The first 20 minutes or so is just this woman calling her sister, and hearing her message. It was dull and boring.<br /><br />With some polishing, and better acting it could have been pretty good.

The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.<br /><br />Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.<br /><br />It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.<br /><br />Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating! <br /><br />Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend.

I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.<br /><br />For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.<br /><br />All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be "Jack", which I've been meaning to review / gut like a fish).<br /><br />Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).<br /><br />I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, "Kiki's Delivery Service", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!<br /><br />By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it.

Is nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.<br /><br />I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny "hood" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black "booty" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.<br /><br />***3 out of 10***

The Elegant Documentary -<br /><br />Don't watch this movie ... if you're an egotistical know-all student of physics. This much less than one percent (miniscule fraction) of the population may find that this show just tells them what they have already learned and already know.<br /><br />Do watch this movie! - If you're one of the massive majority of people that fall into the greater than 99% of the population that does not study or already have a sound knowledge of the theories of physics including Relativity, Quantum, String and M-theory.<br /><br />What a brilliantly architected documentary. Starting with some helpful historical background you will be lead step by elegant step into a Universe of pure magic - and dimensions beyond. I have always had a huge appreciation of Mathematics. This movie can easily give you an insight into what an exquisitely beautiful language mathematics is without making you feel like you're about to fail the grade.<br /><br />The show is repetitive at times as the original format was a mini-series split over three shows. It therefore makes sense to give us polite little reminders of the principles being presented. I found this immensely helpful as it kept reminding me of the multitude of questions and possible answers that make up this amazing tapestry of our very existence.<br /><br />We are all (and everything around us) is vibrational-energy with a natural tendency towards harmony. This movie may blow your mind - or at least help you realize that the universe is far far bigger than that which we see around us (even with the Hubble Telescope) and far far smaller than the protons and neutrons within the atoms we learned about in high-school. M-theory holds many magnificent magnitudes of 'possibility'.<br /><br />It just seemed so appropriate that all of this elegance should by it's very nature move (by admission by the many brilliant scientists presenting) out of the realm of Science and into the realm of Philisophy.<br /><br />You do not have to be religious at all to feel like this movie brought you one step closer to God.<br /><br />Bravo Brian Greene. Well done indeed.<br /><br />P.S. If you're interested in feeling even more comfortable and at home in your place in the Universe and would like some more insight into the 'possibilities' Quantum mechanics blended with Spirituality (of all things) can bring then I highly recommend that you also watch "What the Bleep!? - Down the Rabbit Hole". Yes I know they make a few silly mistakes by suggesting a Shaman may not be able to see a boat if he hasn't seen one before (my eyes process light reflections just fine - I see things everyday that I've never seen before) and brain cells are cells in the body that actually don't divide. But if you can get over these little hurdles and put down the things you don't like and hang on to those that you do - there is a lot to like about this film.<br /><br />Then watch "The Secret" (2006 documentary about The Law of Attraction - search for IMDb title "tt0846789"). This information just might change your life profoundly - forever. If you search deeper you might even find the Universe is talking to us with thought (if you'll listen) - and some are - and that is truly incredible. There is a modern day Jesus/Mohammad/Buddha (those, among others, that history suggests have communicated with the non-physical) alive today and she lives in Texas. I know some of you know what I'm talking about.<br /><br />I do not consider myself religious by any traditional definition but I have never felt more at home or as comfortable in the Universe as I do now.

In 1993, with the success of the first season of Batman: The Animated Series, Warner Brothers commissioned the team responsible for the hit-show with producing a feature-length movie, originally slated for Direct-To-Video, but bumped up to theatrical status. It would become known as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Ten years after Phantasm, we have had an additional three feature-films released from the boys at the WB, Sub-Zero, Return of the Joker, and now, Mystery of the Batwoman joins the family.<br /><br />The plot is basic and in many ways similar to Mask of the Phantasm: A new female vigilante modeling herself after Batman has begun targeting operations run by Gotham mob boss Rupert Thorne and Oswald Cobblepot AKA The Penguin. Now, Batman must attempt to unravel the mystery of the Batwoman before she crosses the line.<br /><br />The animation is the sleeker, futuristic style that was utilized for Batman: The Animated Series' fifth and sixth seasons (AKA The New Batman Adventures). , it's quite nicely done, and just as sleek as Return of the Joker's animation. There is also some use of CGI, but it's minor compared to the overabundance of it in Sub-Zero. The music was alright. Different and exotic and similar to the Justice League score, although the points in the score when the old animated Batman theme comes up will be sure to send waves of nostalgia through the older fans' rodent-shaped hearts.<br /><br />Kevin Conroy, as always, does a wonderful job as Bruce Wayne and Batman. It's also great to have the old Batman: The Animated Series alumni back; that includes Bob Hastings (Commissioner Gordon), Robert Costanzo (Detective Bullock), Tara Strong (Barbara Gordon/Batgirl; her cameo hints at the romantic-relationship between her and Bruce that was mentioned in Batman Beyond), and Efrem Zimbalist Jr.(Alfred).<br /><br />Villains were also great - especially given that Rupert Thorne, the old mob boss from the original series, appears for the first time since the fourth season.<br /><br />Overall, while not quite reaching the standard set by Mask of the Phantasm ten years ago, MOTB carries on the torch quite nicely for the animated Batman films. And if you have the DVD and are a hardcore fan, you will love the five-minute short Chase Me.

I think this movie was supposed to be shocking. But the only way in which it is indeed shocking is how shocking badly it's been made ...and simply is. It's one-and-a-half hour of torment. Even more so for the viewer than for the characters in the movie (the five girls).<br /><br />Sure the main characters get their bloody piece in a bad way, which is basically fine, since it's a horror-movie. And I (usually) like horror-movies. I've no problem with violence in these type of movies per se. However all the violence in this film serves no end whatsoever. It's no spectacle other than that it's simply grotesque. It's so lame it even gets boring, and really quick too.<br /><br />The worst thing (if the above wasn't bad enough for ya) about this movie is that they've tried to copy the Blair Whitch Project, by filming with cheap hand-held-cameras. But (again, this too) serves no end whatsoever. In the "Blair Which", sure enough, there's an explanation, namely they are their with a camera looking for the blair witch. In this film, there's no other explanation than: "Hey ya'll we wanted this to LOOK LIKE the Blair Whitch!!" The sound in the movie is also something to get depressed about. The girls are screaming so hysterically that many a time you can't make out what they're saying. Also, no effort has been made to make anything any better, sound-wise or other wise.<br /><br />Than finally, there's the soundtrack, which is just as bad as the rest, and varies from cheap euro-house to the worst grungy hard-rock...<br /><br />My advise: Don't watch this under ANY circumstances.

Why can't a movie be rated a zero? Or even a negative number? Some movies such as "Plan Nine From Outer Space" are so bad they're fun to watch. THIS IS NOT ONE. "The Dungeon of Horror" might be the worst movie I've ever seen (some of anyway. I HAD to fast forward through a lot of it!). Fortunately for the indiscretions of my youth and senility of my advancing age, there may be worse movies I've seen, but thankfully, I can't remember them. The sets appeared to be made with cardboard and finished with cans of spray paint. The special effects looked like a fifth grader's C+ diorama set in a shoebox. The movie contained unforgivable gaffs such as when the Marquis shoots and kills his servant. He then immediately gets into a scuffle with his escaping victim, who takes his flintlock and shoots him with it, without the gun having been reloaded! This movie was so bad my DVD copy only had name credits. I guess no company or studio wanted to be incriminated. Though I guess when you film in your garage and make sets out of cardboard boxes a studio isn't needed. This movie definitely ranks in my cellar of all time worst movies with such horrible sacrileges as "The Manipulator", the worst movie I have ever seen with an actual (one time) Hollywood leading man-Mickey Rooney. The only time I would recommend watching "The Dungeon of Harrow" (or "The Manipulator" for that matter) would be if someone were to pay you. (I'm kind of cheap) I'd have to have $7 or $8 bucks for "Dungeon" and at least ten for "Manipulator". phil-the never out of the can cinematographer

This movie took me by surprise. The opening credit sequence features nicely done animation. After that, we're plunged into a semi-cheesy production, betraying its low budget. The characters, typical American teens, are introduced slowly, with more personal detail than is usually found in movies like this. By the time the shlitz hits the fan, we know each one of the characters, and either like or hate them according to their distinct personalities. It's a slow uphill set-up, kind of like the ride up a slope of a really tall roller coaster. Thankfully, once the action kicks in, it's full blown old school HORROR! Steve Johnson's make-up effects are awesome. Equal in quality to much bigger budgeted films. And the scares are jolting. Kevin Tenney delivers his best movie ever, with heart-stopping surprises and creepy suspenseful set-ups. The tongue-in-cheek, sometimes cheesy, humor marks this film as pure 80s horror, as opposed to the sullen tone of earlier genre fare like "Night of the Living Dead" or "Hills Have Eyes." But for true horror fans, this one is worth checking out. Play it as the first entry on a double bill with the 1999 remake of "House on the Haunted Hill." The set-up and character dynamics are so similar that you really have to wonder what film they were actually remaking?

Though I'd heard that "Cama de Gato" was the worst Brazilian movie of the decade, I watched it giving it a chance; after all, first-time director/producer/writer Alexandre Stockler managed to make his debut feature (shot in video) for just US$ 4,000 and -- though it looks even cheaper -- I can't begin to imagine all he went through to finally get it exhibited in theaters with no big sponsors or production companies behind it (then as I watched it I realized why). But whatever chances you're ready to give to "Cama de Gato", they shrink to zero within 10 minutes: it's an unbelievably preposterous, verbose, ideologically fanatical and technically catastrophic attempt to portray Brazilian upper-middle class youth as a bunch of spoiled neo-Nazis hooked on bad sex, drugs and violence (and they're made to look like closeted gays too), made with no visible trace of talent, imagination, expertise or notion of structure. Visually and aurally, it recalls the worst amateur stuff you can find on YouTube -- only here it lasts NINETY TWO (count'em) minutes of unrelenting hysteria and clumsiness, and it's not even funny-bad.<br /><br />We've all seen the story before: bored young guys want to have fun, go partying, take drugs and everything goes wrong -- there's gang-rape, spanking, murder, the accidental death (falling down the staircase!!) of the mother of one of the boys, culminating with the boys deciding to burn the corpses of the girl and the mother in a garbage landfill. Moral and literal garbage, get it? The film is heavily influenced by Larry Clark (especially "Kids" and "Bully"), but Clark's films -- though also moralist and sexploitative -- are high-class masterworks compared to this crap.<br /><br />I don't think there was ever such monomaniacal drive in a filmmaker to stick his ideas down the audience's throat: Stockler grabs us by the collar and tries to force his non-stop moralist rant into our brains by repetition and exhaustion -- you DO get numb-minded with so much babbling, yelling, inept direction, shaky camera and terrible acting going on. Stockler doesn't care a bit about technique (the quality of the images, framing, sound recording, soundtrack songs, dialog, sets, editing, etc is uniformly appalling), but he's a narcissistic control-freak: he anticipates the criticisms he's bound to get by adding subtitles with smartie/cutie comments, and by making the protagonists comment at one point how far-fetched and phony it all is (I could relate to THAT). <br /><br />Despite his megalomaniac ambitions, Stockler seems incapable of giving us a minimum of visual or narrative structure -- he can't even decide if he wants gritty realism (hand-held video camera etc) or stylization (repetition of scenes, use of alternate takes, etc). Damn, he can't even decide WHERE to put his camera (there's use of subjective camera for the THREE leads)! The dialog features some of the most stupefyingly banal verbosity ever; the plot exists simply to justify the director's profound hatred for his characters and what they stand for. All you see is a filmmaker being hateful, preachy, condemning, moralizing without the benefit of a minimum of talent (or technique) to go with it.<br /><br />It's very disappointing to find Caio Blat in this mess. Certainly one of the most promising young film actors in Brazil, with his sleepy-eyed puppy dog looks and emotional edge that often recall Sal Mineo's, Blat can be highly effective under good direction (as in "Carandiru", "Lavoura Arcaica", "Proibido Proibir"). Here, he's told to go over the top and he has to play with some of the most embarrassingly under-equipped "actors" in recent memory. He also enters the risky realm of graphic sexploitation scenes (so goddawful they look rather like web-cam porn).<br /><br />The film opens and ends with real interviews with "typical" (?) middle-class youth -- Stockler wants us to take those interviews as "proof" of what he's trying to preach in fiction. But he blatantly despises and makes fun of his interviewees, selecting a highlight of abject, racist, sexist, stupid statements (which only shows assholes exist everywhere). Stockler wants to prove that Brazilian middle-class youths are ALL present or future fascists BECAUSE they're middle-class and enjoy recreational drugs (is he saying all neo-fascists are on drugs?? Or that drugs potentialize fascist behavior?? I couldn't tell). <br /><br />With its dogmatic self-righteousness, headache-inducing technique and mind-bending boredom, "Cama de Gato" is bad for a 1,000 reasons but, above all, it's harmful in a very insidious manner: it gives detractors of Brazilian cinema a powerful case of argument. "Cama de Gato" is best unwatched, unmentioned, buried and forgotten.

An unforgettable masterpiece from the creator of The Secret of Nimh and The Land Before Time, this was a very touching bittersweet cartoon. I remember this very well from my childhood, it was funny and sad and very beautiful. Well it starts out a bit dark, a dog who escaped the pound, and gets killed by an old friend, ends up in Heaven, and comes back. But it becomes sweet when he befriends an orphaned girl who can talk to animals. Some scenes were a bit scary contrary to other cartoons, like the dream sequence of Charlie, but everything else was okay,and the songs were fair. A memorable role of Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise, I just love that guy, ahehehe. And Judith Barsi of Jaws The Revenge, may God rest her soul, poor girl, she didn't deserve to die, but she is in Heaven now, all good people go to Heaven. Overall this is a very good animated movie, a Don Bluth classic enough to put anime and Disney to shame. Recommended for the whole family. And know this, if you have the original video of this, you'll find after the movie, Dom DeLuise has a very important and special message, gotta love that guy, ahehehe.

This movie was a failure as a comedy and a film in general. It was a very slow paced movie that seemed to be trying to convey a message, but the message was a cliché, hopeless mess to begin with. This movie falls on shameless environmental point, even making a self-righteous point of destroying an SUV and promoting Animal Planet.<br /><br />In sitting through this, I couldn't help but notice that Steve Carell got no more than a single truly funny line. The only thing that could hypothetically mark this as a comedy is the pitiful attempt to give comic relief lines to Wanda Sykes. Her character gets frequent, cringe-worthy lines where they absolutely do not fit.<br /><br />Far from the brilliance of Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty blows its whole record-breaking budget on special effect plot devices that turn out to barely advance the plot. The movie spends the first half building up to the construction of Evan's ark, but by the end, we learn that the ark was completely meaningless, and the whole plot was a just a vessel for the stupid gags and even stupider messages. The movie concludes when we learn that the whole ark, flood, and animal gathering was just a weak political statement by none other than God. Yes, God was trying to influence politics.

It is so gratifying to see one great piece of art converted into another without distortion or contrivance. I had no guess as to how such an extraordinary piece of literature could be recreated as a film worth seeing. If you loved Bulgakov's book you would be, understandably, afraid of seeing some misguided interpretation done more for the sake of an art-film project than for actually bringing the story's deeper meaning to the screen. There are a couple examples of this with the Master and Margarita. As complex and far-fetched as the story is, the movie leaves out nothing. It is as if the filmmaker read Bulgakov's work the same way an orchestral conductor reads a score--with not a note missed. Why can't we find such talent here in the U.S. ? So now my favorite book and movie have the same title.

This movie is very violent, yet exciting with original dialog and cool characters. It has one of the most moving stories and is very true to life. The movie start off with action star Leo Fong as a down and out cop who is approaching the end of his career, when he stumbles on to a big case that involves corruption, black mail and murder. This is where the killings start. From start finish Fong delivers in this must see action caper. This movie also co-stars Richard Roundtree.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this film as a child but as I got older I realized that this film is pretty cheesy and not very good. I would not recommend this film and the action is very, very bad.

The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.<br /><br />That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.<br /><br />Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.<br /><br />This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.<br /><br />The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.<br /><br />As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying.

This has to be the worst piece of garbage I've seen in a while.<br /><br />Heath Ledger is a heartthrob? He looked deformed. I wish I'd known that he and Naomi Watts are an item in real life because I spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him. <br /><br />Orlando Bloom is a heartthrob? With the scraggly beard and deer-in-the-headlights look about him, I can't say I agree.<br /><br />Rachel Griffiths was her usual fabulous self, but Geoffrey Rush looked as if he couldn't wait to get off the set. <br /><br />I'm supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers? This is a far cry from Butch Cassidy, which actually WAS an entertaining film. This was trite, cliche-ridden and boring. We only stayed because we were convinced it would get better. It didn't.<br /><br />The last 10-15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious. Heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel, and women and children are dying because of their presence. That's not funny. But it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on, because all we could think of was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I kept waiting for them to say "I'll bite yer leg off!" We were howling with laughter, as were several other warped members of the audience. When we left, pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was.<br /><br />I may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview), but it certainly wasn't free. It cost me 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.

A very ordinary made-for-tv product, "Tyson" attempts to be a serious biopic while stretching the moments of angst for effect, fast forwarding through the esoterics of the corrupt sport of boxing, and muddling the sensationalistic stuff which is the only thing which makes Tyson even remotely interesting. A lukewarm watch at best which more likely to appeal to the general public than to boxing fans.

I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.<br /><br />I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.<br /><br />It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.<br /><br />I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.<br /><br />I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....

I haven't read the Anne Rice novel that this movie was based on, but who knows, maybe reading the book is cheaper than renting QUEEN OF THE DAMNED and is probably better for your health. It isn't that this movie is necessarily bad for your health, but a book can be very relaxing and certainly exercises the active part of your brain more so than this movie. You can count the number of pages by Anne Rice that I've read on one hand, but after seeing this movie and Interview with a Vampire, I get the feeling that she writes really good novels. The plots for both movies hint at a whole sea of deep and interwoven vampire history.<br /><br />Still, Stuart Townsend's voice-over narration gets a heck of a lot more annoying than Brad Pitt's vampire narrative ever did, and you can tell that QUEEN OF THE DAMNED's limited production resources barely give enough flesh to the Anne Rice storyline. While Interview decided to go with lace and elegance, QUEEN relies on low budget special effects that try really hard to be taken seriously. One can see that the original novel had potential as a movie and that the production team focused its attention in the wrong places. The costumes and rock & roll stage could have been replaced with more blood and an eerier soundtrack.<br /><br />However, I'll give credit where credit is due. The soundtrack is excellent. Korn and Disturbed had me down with the sickness bobbing my noggin like Butthead.<br /><br />The film opens with a very cool Goth-rock zoom & splice montage, but after the first ten minutes or so, the directing degenerates quickly. It's as if the movie was so long that the director realized that there wasn't enough time and enough money to do an Anne Rice novel justice. What results are some mediocre vampire scenes and plenty of cheesy special effects. Unfortunately, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED fails to do the genre justice just as its John Carpenter counterparts fail to impress. Where are the yellow contacts? Where's the pale blue make-up? Scene after scene, I shook my head reminiscing about the days of Salem's Lot and Fright Night when low budget was done right.<br /><br />There are redeeming qualities though that save this movie from being garbage. Props to Aaliyah, and may her soul forever rest in peace. She might have become a renowned actress, had her life not been taken from us so prematurely, for she did give this movie a decent performance with plenty of nice belly dancing. Did I mention that the soundtrack was good? Let's see, what else can I say? It wasn't too long. The Anne Rice novel could have easily been a three hour movie if an ambitious director like Francis Ford Coppola got his hands on it. There are a few twists and turns here and there in the plot. But all in all it was a legitimate rock and roll addition to the slew of second-rate vampire movies out there. The director of this movie went on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica mini series if that tells you anything.<br /><br />JY<br /><br />Jimboduck-dot-com

While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.

Leonard Maltin gave this film a dreaded BOMB rating in his 1995 Movie and Video Guide. What film was he looking at? Kid Vengeance or God's Gun are bombs. This film is a delight. It is fantastic. It is literate. It is well mounted. It is beautiful photographed, making a brilliant use of colors. Right from the opening scene the film grabs your attention and tips you off that this film is a well-done satire of the whole Spaghetti Western genre. The film is played for laughs from the beginning to the end with homages to Douglas Fairbanks, 77 Sunset Strip, and the famous showdown in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Edd Byrnes, George Hilton, and Gilbert Roland work brilliantly together to make the satire work. It is too bad Mr. Maltin rated this film so poorly as it is undeserved. One can only guess as to his reason. I suspect that he missed the point of the movie entirely and was expecting something more serious than this film is meant to be. Kudos belong to everyone involved in this project. This film is a little gem waiting to be discovered by people who care about literate movies and appreciate satire.

I don't believe there has ever been a more evil or wicked television program to air in the United States as The 700 Club. They are today's equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan of the 20th century. Their hatred of all that is good and sweet and human and pure is beyond all ability to understand. Their daily constant attacks upon millions and millions of Americans, as well as billions of humans the world over, who don't happen to share their bigoted, cruel, monstrous, and utterly insane view of humanity is beyond anything television has ever seen. The lies they spout and the ridiculous lies they try to pass off as truth, such as the idea of "life after death" or "god" or "sin" or "the devil" is so preposterous that they actually seem mentally ill, so lost are they in their fantasy. Sane people know that religion is a drug and shouldn't let themselves get addicted to that type of fantasy. However, The 700 Club is in a class by itself. They are truly a cult. While I believe in freedom of speech, they way they spread hatred, lies, disinformation, and such fantastic ideas is beyond all limits. I hope that one day the American Psychiatric Association will finally take up the study of those people who delude themselves in this way, people who let themselves sink so deeply into the fantasy land of religion that they no longer have any real concept of reality at all. Treatment for such afflicted individuals is sorely needed in this country, as so many people have completely lost their minds to the fantasy of religion. The 700 Club though, is even more horrible as it rises to the legal definition of 'cult' but due to The 700 Club's vast wealth (conned daily from the millions of Americans locked in their deceitful grip) they are above the law in this country. For those of you who have seen the movie "The Matrix" you know that movie was a metaphor for religion on earth: the evil ones who are at the top of each of the religions who drain the ones they have trapped and cruelly abuse for their own selfish purposes, and those millions who are held in a death sleep and slowly being drained of their life force represent those many people who belong to religions and who have lost all ability to perceive what is really going on around them.<br /><br />In less civil times, the good townsfolk would have run such monsters as those associated with The 700 Club out of town with torches and pitchforks. But in today's world where people have lost all choice in their choices of television that is presented to them, we have no way to rid ourselves of the 700 Club plague. <br /><br />The television ratings system and the "V" chip on TV's should also have a rating called "R" for religion, so that rational people and concerned parents could easily screen such vile intellectual and brutal emotional rape, such as presented by The 700 Club every day all over our country, from themselves and their children.

If you wish to see Shakespeare's masterpiece in its entirety, I suggest you find this BBC version. Indeed it is overlong at four and a half hours but Jacoby's performance as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart's as Claudius are well worth the effort.<br /><br />It never ceases to amaze me how clear "Hamlet" is when you see it in its length and order as set down by the Bard. Every film version of "Hamlet" has tinkered with its structure. Olivier concentrated on Hamlet's indecision, Gibson on his passions. Jacoby is able to pull all of these aspects of Hamlet's character together with the aid of Shakespeare's full script.<br /><br />Why does Hamlet not kill Claudius immediately? Hamlet says "I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious..." Hamlet is extremely upset, not only for his father's death (and suspected murder), or his mother's marriage to his uncle, but also, and mostly, because Claudius has usurped the throne belonging to Hamlet. He is furious at his mother for marrying Claudius (marriages between royal kin is not unknown; done for political reasons) but that her marriage solidified Claudius' claim to the throne before he could return from Wittenburg to claim it for himself. He is, therefore, impotent to do anything about it. And this is true even after he hears his father's ghost cry vengeance. He cannot simply kill the King or he will lose the throne in doing so. He must "out" the King's secret and here is the tragedy! At the moment Hamlet is successful in displaying Claudius' guilt in public, he has opportunity to kill him and does not. WHY? He wants it ALL! He wants revenge, the throne AND the damnation of Claudius' soul in hell. Hamlet OVERREACHES himself in classic tragic form. His own HUBRIS is his undoing. He kills Polonius thinking it is Claudius and the rest of the play spirals down to the final deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet himself.

The Golden Door is the story of a Sicilian family's journey from the Old World (Italy) to the New World (America). Salvatore, a middle-aged man who hopes for a more fruitful life, persuades his family to leave their homeland behind in Sicily, take the arduous journey across the raging seas, and inhabit a land whose rivers supposedly flow with milk. In short, they believe that by risking everything for the New World their dreams of prosperity will be fulfilled. The imagery of the New World is optimistic, clever and highly imaginative. Silver coins rain from heaven upon Salvatore as he anticipates how prosperous he'll be in the New World; carrots and onions twice the size of human beings are shown being harvested to suggest wealth and health, and rivers of milk are swam in and flow through the minds of those who anticipate what the New World will yield. All of this imagery is surrealistically interwoven with the characters and helps nicely compliment the gritty realism that the story unfolds to the audience. The contrast between this imagery versus the dark reality of the Sicilian people helps provide hope while they're aboard the ship to the New World.<br /><br />The voyage to the New World is shot almost in complete darkness, especially when the seas tempests roar and nearly kill the people within. The dark reality I referred to is the Old World and the journey itself to the New World. The Old World is depicted as somewhat destitute and primitive. This is shown as Salvatore scrambles together to sell what few possessions he has left (donkeys, goats and rabbits) in order to obtain the appropriate clothing he needs to enter the New World. I thought it was rather interesting that these people believed they had to conform to a certain dress code in order to be accepted in the New World; it was almost suggesting that people had to fit a particular stereotype or mold in order to be recognized as morally fit. The most powerful image in the film was when the ship is leaving their homeland and setting sail for the New World. This shot shows an overhead view of a crowd of people who slowly seem to separate from one another, depicting the separation between the Old and New Worlds. This shot also suggested that the people were being torn away from all that was once familiar, wanted to divorce from their previous dark living conditions and were desirous to enter a world that held more promise.<br /><br />As later contrasted to how the New World visually looks, the Old World seems dark and bleak as compared to the bright yet foggy New World. I thought it was particularly interesting that the Statue of Liberty is never shown through the fog at Ellis Island, but is remained hidden. I think this was an intentional directing choice that seemed to negate the purpose of what the Statue of Liberty stands for: "Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry" seemed like a joke in regards to what these people had to go through when arriving at the New World. Once they arrived in the Americas, they had to go through rather humiliating tests (i.e. delousing, mathematics, puzzles, etc.) in order to prove themselves as fit for the New World. These tests completely changed the perspectives of the Sicilian people. In particular, Salvatore's mother had the most difficult time subjecting herself to the rules and laws of the New World, feeling more violated than treated with respect. Where their dreams once provided hope and optimism for what the New World would provide, the reality of what the New World required was disparaging and rude. Salvatore doesn't change much other than his attitude towards what he felt the New World would be like versus what the New World actually was seemed disappointing to him. This attitude was shared by mostly everyone who voyaged with him. Their character arcs deal more with a cherished dream being greatly upset and a dark reality that had to be accepted.<br /><br />The film seems to make a strong commentary on preparing oneself to enter a heavenly and civilized society. Cleanliness, marriage and intelligence are prerequisites. Adhering to these rules is to prevent disease, immoral behavior and stupidity from dominating. Perhaps this is a commentary on how America has learned from the failings of other nations and so was purposefully established to secure that these plagues did not infest and destruct. Though the rules seemed rigid, they were there to protect and help the people flourish.

Nifty little episode played mainly for laughs, but with clever dollop of suspense. Somehow a Martian has snuck aboard a broken-down bus on its way to nowhere, but which passenger is it, (talk about your illegal immigrants!). All-star supporting cast, from wild-eyed Jack Elam (hamming it up shamelessly), to sexy Jean Willes (if she's the Martian, then I say let's open the borders!), to cruel-faced John Hoyt (the most obvious suspect), along with familiar faces John Archer and Barney Phillips (and a nice turn from Bill Kendis as the bus driver). Makes for a very entertaining half-hour even if the action is confined to a single set.

I had before a feeling of mislike for all Russian films. But, after seeing this film I haven´t. This is a unique masterpiece made by the best director ever lived in the USSR. He knows the art of film making, and can use it very well. If you find this movie: buy or copy it!

I watched mask in the 80's and it's currently showing on Fox Kids in the UK (very late at night). I remember thinking that it was kinda cool back in the day and had a couple of the toys too but watching it now bores me to tears. I never realised before of how tedious and bland this cartoon show really was. It's just plain awful! It is no where near in the same league as The Transformers, He-man or Thundercats and was very quickly forgot by nearly everyone once it stopped being made. I only watch it on Fox Kids because Ulysses 31 comes on straight after it (that's if mask doesn't put me to sleep first). One of the lesser 80's cartoons that i hope to completely forget about again once it finishes airing on Fox Kids!

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

Ludicrous. Angelic 9-year-old Annakin turns into whiny brat 19-year-old Annakin, who somehow seems appealing to Amidala, 5 years his senior. Now 22-year-old Jedi warrior hero Annakin has a couple of bad dreams, and so takes to slaughtering children, his friends, and the entire framework of his existence because a crazy old man convinced him a) his precious wife might really die, and b) only he can prevent this. Ludicrosity squared.<br /><br />I think the people who like this movie are not paying attention. The story is ridiculous. The characters are unbelievable (literally, not the perverted sense of "fantastic", "wonderful", etc.).<br /><br />Obi-wan Kenobi was the wise and kind anchor for the entire series, but in the climax, he hacks off Annakin's legs, lets him burn in the lava, and leaves him to suffer. Doesn't anyone think that's a little out of character? Not to mention it was pretty stupid to take a chance on him living, as it turns out.<br /><br />I was expecting at least a story that showed consistent characters with plausible motivations. None of that here. The story could have been written by a 10 year old.<br /><br />Oh yeah, the CGI is pretty cool.

Scotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie "Killer Klowns from outer space") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since "Friday the 13th part 2"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.<br /><br />My Grade:D- <br /><br />Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think "Bachlor Party" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.<br /><br />Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass

If you keep rigid historical perspective out of it, this film is actually quite entertaining. It's got action, adventure and romance, and one of the premiere casting match-ups of the era with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in the lead roles. As evident on this board, the picture doesn't pass muster with purists who look for one hundred percent accuracy in their story telling. To get beyond that, one need only put aside the history book, and enjoy the story as if it were a work of fiction. I know, I know, that's hard to do when you consider Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn and it's prominence in the history of post Civil War America. So I guess there's an unresolved quandary with the picture, no matter how you look at it.<br /><br />There's a lot to take in here though for the picture's two hour plus run time. Custer's arrival at West Point is probably the first head scratcher, riding up as he does in full military regalia. The practical joke by Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) putting him up in the Major's headquarters probably should have gotten them both in trouble.<br /><br />Ironically, a lot of scenes in this military film play for comedy, as in Custer's first meeting with Libby Bacon, and subsequent encounters that include tea reader Callie (Hattie McDaniel). I hadn't noticed it before in other films, but McDaniel reminded me an awful lot of another favorite character actor of mine from the Forties, Mantan Moreland. So much so that in one scene it looked like it might have been Moreland hamming it up in a dress. With that in mind, the owl scene was a hoot too.<br /><br />As for Flynn, it's interesting to note that a year earlier, he portrayed J.E.B. Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's depiction of General Custer in "Santa Fe Trail", both vying for the attention of none other than Olivia de Havilland. In that film, Reagan put none of the arrogance and flamboyance into the character of Custer that history remembers, while in Flynn's portrayal here it's more than evident. But it doesn't come close to that of Richard Mulligan's take on the military hero in 1970's "Little Big Man". Let's just say that one was a bit over the top.<br /><br />The better take away the picture had for me was the manner in which Custer persevered to maintain his good name and not gamble it away on a risky business venture. That and his loyalty to the men he led in battle along with the discipline he developed over the course of the story. Most poignant was that final confrontation with arch rival Sharp just before riding into the Little Big Horn, in which he declared that hell or glory was entirely dependent on one's point of view. Earlier, a similar remark might have given us the best insight of all into Custer's character, when he stated - "You take glory with you when it's your time to go".

The film quickly gets to a major chase scene with ever increasing destruction. The first really bad thing is the guy hijacking Steven Seagal would have been beaten to pulp by Seagal's driving, but that probably would have ended the whole premise for the movie.<br /><br />It seems like they decided to make all kinds of changes in the movie plot, so just plan to enjoy the action, and do not expect a coherent plot. Turn any sense of logic you may have, it will reduce your chance of getting a headache.<br /><br />I does give me some hope that Steven Seagal is trying to move back towards the type of characters he portrayed in his more popular movies.