Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

If I ever write movies or make them, i would want one of them to be like this one. I enjoy the goof-ball sense of humor and jokes contained within. This movie does stupid things without looking like it. The names of the places and characters are priceless, Generic New York High School, Squid Calimari (George's sister), etc...genius. I've seen this movie so many times because it was a cable tv staple while I was growing up, of course I didn't get all of the jokes back than but it was still funny.This movie is a time-less classic.

"Atlantis" is a new and right step for a Disney feature. It's a good choice to make a film by such a mysterious legend like "Atlantis". I didn't have any expectations for this film, but after watching it, I don't quite understand why this film got so bad reviews. Even in my country the reviewers weren't positive.<br /><br />"Atlantis" is not a perfect movie, but still one of Disney's greatest, even I doubt that this film ever will get "Disney classic" reputation. Well, that's another case. It's funny to think that this sci-fi movie was directed by the same directors as "Beauty and the Beast" and "Hunchback" (so Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale are trying to get away from their monster movies reputation, he he, I'm just kidding).<br /><br />Well, enough nonsense. "Atlantis" is a watchable, exiting and very enjoyable film. Even this film it's a PG-rated action-feature, it's also suitable for kids, in my opinion (parents who mean the opposite, don't kill me for writing this, he he).<br /><br />The story is a little predictable, but it doesn't ruin the movie. The comic book-inspired animation it's suitable for the film and set's a departure from the usual Disney-style. It's colorful, dark and detailed. The Deep Canvas sequences are pretty impressive. The film is also funny sometimes, even I more giggled than laugh through the movie. (SPOILERS) The characters of this film are also very likable, but unfortunately there isn't enough screen time to get to know everybody, so some characters are left behind (SPOILERS).<br /><br />The score of James Newton Howard is absolutely great. It's daring and exotic. (SPOILER) The most impressive about this film is how they're making the Atlantean language sound very natural, ethnic and authentic. It's really awesome (SPOILERS OVER)<br /><br />The script is tight and well-written, but still the there are some questions left unanswered in the story. But luckily there are not so much of them.<br /><br />So do you're self a favor, don't listen to the reviewers and watch "Atlantis", cause it's waiting for you...

Ok i know the original Ghoulies aren't in this entry it even seems it doesn't belong in this series. But it still iz a good movie. It is hilarious i thought especially with the pepper spray or mace. I give it a 9

Has this ever happened to you? I go into my local video store and see a few new arrivals in the "film noir" section. I spy a copy of a new arrival of a film I have never seen called NAKED ALIBI. Its from one of those mail order video companies that offers (mostly) "dupey" looking copies of hard to find titles. The description on the box sounds good. The film has players I like (Sterling Hayden, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Barry). So I take it home and watch it. About ten minutes into this film I started having second thoughts. About half way through this film I started to dislike it. By the time the film ended, I not only disliked it, I despised it. The film opens with cops questioning Al Willis on suspicion of robbery. Other than being drunk, the police have nothing on him. When he pushes a cop and demands to be allowed to go home, the cops beat him up. Detective Conroy arrives, lets the cops finish the beating and then announces Willis is in the clear. Willis swears he will get revenge. Later one of the police officers is shot dead. With no evidence other that Willis is "sore" about the beating, Conroy make Willis his sole suspect, despite the fact that his boss names a pair of mobsters as suspects. Conroy arrests him, but for lack evidence Willis is released. The next day two more cops are killed by a bomb. This time Conroy goes to the Bakery that Willis owns and tries to beat a confession out of him. Conroy doesn't know it but a local newsman whose paper has been accusing Conroys department of police brutality snaps a picture of Conroy trying strangle Willis and Conroy is fired. But Conroy continues his pursuit and Willis flees to Mexico where Willis has a mistress. Conroy manages to convince his mistress (who Willis treats rather rough) to help him prove Willis is a killer. What this film lacks is a convincing script. The script looks as if only a rough draft was written and shooting began before a finished script was completed. Things happen, characters personalities change, plot twists occur for no real reason other than that script calls for it. Other than the fact that Willis likes to tip a glass now and than, there is nothing in the early part of the film to make us think that he is a crazy killer that cheats on his wife. He treats his wife, his kid and employees well. Early in the film, one gets the impression that its Conroy is the one whose is a loose cannon. He seems to casually approve of police brutality. Conroy, for no reason is convinced from the very start Willis has criminal past. He seems to operate on the motto of the old Communist Bulgarian secret police; "Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not found out about it yet." Later Conroy shows kindness to Al's mistress and young son, now we are supposed to like him. Sorry! The early impression I got of Conroy stuck with me too long. And he is also a dumb cop. Only after he is fired and goes to Mexico does he run a background check on Willis and discovers that a warrant is out for him issued in Maryland. Why didn't he think of this before? Because this film hadn't used up enough running time. The cast is good. Gene Barry does well considering how poorly conceived his role of Al Willis is. I'm big fan of 40's and 50's crime thrillers but not only did I not think this film was good, it left a bad taste in my mouth (something many modern films do, but older films rarely do).

I read all of Nancy Drew as a preteen and collect the books as a grown-up. I loved the effect used at the end (and a little bit at the beginning) of the movie where line drawings in the style of the books morphed into scenes from the movie. It was a neat way of pointing out connections between situations in the movie and the books. For example, the scenes with the Oriental antiques dealer were very reminiscent of many scenarios I remember from the books. I thought Ned was perfectly cast, and Emma Roberts was a wonderful 21st century interpretation of Nancy Drew. (Just like the picture of Betty Crocker, she keeps up with the times!)

Now I understand that this took two months to shoot. Really? I'm pretty certain my crew could do it in less than a week. This movie sucked so bad I couldn't even pay close attention. Just more proof that boob bearing women can't always save you from horrible writing, acting and direction. Now I understand it was a no budget endeavor, but there is also no continuity and no real reason to not to turn it off and watch infomercials or foreign news in a language you don't understand. Oh, there are a few decent looking females showing the goods. Still, there aren't enough sexy women alive to warrant watching this travesty perpetrated on the film industry. One of the longest 80 minutes of my life. I trooped it out though with the help of my old friend Jim Beam. Do yourself a favor and get your gun ready cuz you may want to use it after this hack job. Lastly, the individual (moron) who left a comment before mine thought this was a great movie and LOVED it. Just more proof that siblings shouldn't pro-create. Ow, BURN!!! - Captain J

This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's "Ikiru(Live)" in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,"It is a good film, isn't it?". I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this point of view,"Letyat zhuravli" must be in the pantheon of classics of all the time, as "City light","Ikiru" and "La Strada".

This movie is not realistic at all, more of a comedy than a serious war film. Very old-fashioned too. Maybe I was just expecting it to be on a same level with "Platoon". I wonder, why 50% of the voters gave it 10? Something must be wrong.

This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, "What the hell is this?" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash.

Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down.

80's comedies (especially ones with John Cusak) are awesome. Almost all are hillarious and instant classics and this film is no exception. Plenty of nods to other films (i.e. Godzilla and Jaws) through out the movie that are so hillarious you'll be laughing for hours. Some may complain that the movie is a little corny at times but hey it was the 80's and things were always a little cheesy. Throw in a young Demi Moore and an even louder Bob Cat and you have a laughfest on your fans. If you haven't seen this, you better soon!!!!!!

Pushing Daisies was a wonderful show. Much like Dead Like Me and Wonderfalls, you can tell was created by Bryan Fuller. I can understand how people who don't have much of a love for theater, cinema, musicals and the like would be annoyed. This is not a typical television program and the fantastic is too much for some. These people seem to need some a little more linear and muted tone to keep them happy. This program explodes with color, winks at old movie scenes, hums with incredible music and talented performances. There is nothing random about the choices that are made from costume to leitmotif. The story takes many twists and turns but all very accessible because the conversations are about love, honesty, courage, loss and so many other things we face every day. The only unfortunate aspect was the ending of the show and that was rushed because Pushing Daisies was canceled. Don't approach this as a typical TV show. Think of it as an evening at the theater, then sit back and enjoy!

I was truly looking forward to this title. It sounded and looked fun. The idea of someone making a cheesy 50s monster movie could have been worth a few laughs, but instead this title only bores. First off, there is almost no Froggg in the entire movie which is the biggest disappointment. I have to sit through 75+ minutes of lame drama and dialog to get a few glimpses of the Froggg humping a bare breasted chick. Why? On top of that the film lacks any sort of fun plot. I mean give me something thats a bit more interesting than just a bunch of talking heads. I wanted to see some hot chicks search for the creature in the swamp, I wanted to see some cuties dragged off to his lair in desperate need of rescue (Creature from the Black Lagoon stuff), I wanted to see a few goofy action scenes of the Froggg going on a killing spree, or it maybe escaping a silly trap. Something exciting! Geez, have fun with it, be creative! Who wants to sit through endless and tiring dialog scenes in a creature flick? My advice to the filmmakers: Keep going, your concepts are good, but your execution needs to be a lot more inspired. Have some fun with the creature, put the humor in the action and most important...put more creature in a creature movie!!!

First off, I knew nothing about 'Mazes and Monster' before I watched it. I had no knowledge of the Role-playing controversy behind it or the fact that it was a Made-For-TV movie. When I looked at the cover (the updated DVD one) I seriously thought it would be another Fantasy adventure like 'Legend', with Tom Hank as the nerdy hero from 1980s earth entering a mythical world to save a princess from an evil maze filled with monsters. Sounds exciting, right? That is what the cover suggests to you at first glance. I was given this movie as a gift, obviously under the same premise because my aunt knows I'm into action movies with a medieval myth theme. And it has Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. So I popped this movie in, expecting a feel good movie with Tom Hanks in a 80s special effects world that would be good for a laugh.<br /><br />No! None of this happens. Now before I continue I will confess, I am a nerd but I have no interest in Role-playing games. That is all this movie is about so my interest in the content is lukewarm at best. And M&M (copyright infringement?) is not even a feel good role-playing based movie with lovable geeks that uses their imagination to enter a world of awesomeness. No! This is an Anti-Role-playing movie that must have been made by some Religious folk (the same people who also think Barney is the work of Satan.) I understand, Satan is a crafty fellow but I don't think he is desperate enough for soul to lull RPG lovers into worship him. This movie is THEE anti-gamer movie. This is what I get from this movie: it hates RPGs and not only does it make fun of the people engaging in Role-playing but it makes poor Tom Hanks a mental patient.<br /><br />Tom had an excuse to talk to a volleyball in 'Castaway', poor guy was alone but Tom somehow made his insanity fun and you literally saw the Volleyball as a lovable character through Tom's good acting. I wish I watched that movie instead of this. In this movie, Tom is attacked by a make believe dragon creature (it looks like a poorly made mascot for a RPG team) and has a split personality that is creepy at best. Tom's acting only exceeds to make you feel bad for his character and nothing else. I get that the poor guy lost his brother and is not right in the head because of it so the movie does win points for being intentionally tragic. I am not one for films that exploit mental illness and the ending to 'M&M' made me feel like cr*p. Luckily I watched 'Hudson Hawk' afterwards and got a good laugh before my soul was crushed any further. Yah, 'HH' surpasses 'M&M' by . . . a LOT! This is not one of Tom's better films. In fact it is thee most depressing movie I've ever seen him in (Even 'Saving Private Ryan' is not this depressing). I walked in hoping to watch a feel good movie and I ended up feeling the exact opposite. If you want to watch a sad (both emotionally and visually) movie then by all means watch this. If this movie is to convey a message, it is this: "Don't play RPGs if you are Cuckoo for Coco-Puffs."

The zenith of two brilliant careers. David Lynch, better known for less accessible material, crafts a delicate and exquisite story around the most unlikely premise. A man travels to see his estranged brother. Having no other means of transportation, his journey takes him over six weeks on a lawn mower. Richard Farnsworth, in his last film, delivers a stunningly layered and nuanced performance in the starring role. Achingly beautiful in its exultation of small things, Straight Story is a classic cinema experience that must not be missed. Sissy Spacek is notable as Farnsworth's daughter, an impaired middle-aged woman living with the loss of her children.

I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in "The Lonely Lady"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way!

Personal taste rules when it comes to talking about movies such as this treasured little gem. Way back in the eighties, the early eighties, i discovered this movie, like so many released at the time, "Night Patrol" "Bad Manners" or even "King Frat" the artwork and blurbs on the back of the covers tempted and teased you.<br /><br />Of course being of an age, movies like that i have already mentioned as well as stuff like "Screwballs" and the many others, captured the imagination, and thankfully many years later i still remember some with fondness and some with disdain the many movies that help maintain my love of such genre as parodies or pastiches.<br /><br />Made many years after the huge success of "Animal House" and having seen how it had fared down through the years, I now know that there would be no way this movie would ever eclipse the box office bucks obtain aforementioned nor would it linger in the memory, much like that of National Lampoon's Vacation.<br /><br />To be honest, not everything that has carried the National Lampoon Logo has been a wild success, however to me Class Reunion remains one of my all time favourite movies, with instantly recognisable characters, such as the aloof Bob Spinnaker played to perfection by Gerrit Graham, so good in Charles Band's "Terrorvision" still lingering in the past glories of his youth. Or how about Stephen Furst's brash and ballsy turn as the high school lazy drunken sex crazed bum Hubert Downs.<br /><br />Sweet as. Which makes me ponder. As i already said, personal taste not withstanding. People can be so cruel, so it will never win any awards or be compared to the like of its's peers within the comedy world. It does have some merit. Being one of the earlier scripts penned by John Hughes, who would later go on to do one of my own favourites of his work "Weird Science" as well as having a wonderful theme title sung by the great Gary U.S Bonds.<br /><br />What more can i say, it's a movie just waiting to be rediscovered, time and time again.

This movie embodies the soul of modern "elite" foodculture, even though the movie is 17 years old. The standing principle in the movie is: Food is more than just nourishing matter. It is also a powerful symbol and a medium for culture itself. The main characters literally get drunk on the finest wine and food, become inspired by idealistic thoughts and culture, as they let go of their puritanism and passion-denying table manners. Karen Blixens shortstory makes use of the difference between North Europe and South Europe, to point out their inherently different approaches to food. As the strict and and rather dull scandinavians get infused with "Eros" from south, the party gets going. So what are you waiting for? Go watch it.....again!

I gave this film my rare 10 stars.<br /><br />When I first began watching it and realized it would not be a film with a strong plot line I almost turned it off. I am very glad I didn't.<br /><br />This is a character driven film, a true story, which revolves mainly around the life of Rachel "Nanny" Crosby, a strong, beautiful (inside and out)Black woman and how she touched the lives of so many in the community of Lackawanna.<br /><br />Highly interesting not only its strong characterizations of Nanny and the people who lived at her boardinghouse, but also it gives us a look at what life and community were like for African Americans in the 1950's, prior to integration, and the good and bad sides of segregation and how it ultimately affected and changed the Black community.<br /><br />In addition to excellent performances by all members of the cast, there is some fine singing and dancing from that era.

The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.<br /><br />Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.<br /><br />With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music.

I saw this movie on it's opening night, and enjoyed it. I probably would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been sitting by my father. My father saw the original (unfortunately, I have not seen it yet) and kept talking through the whole thing. He kept saying that the movie sucked, and that it was stupid. The thing is, he didn't understand that the creators were slightly making fun of the horror genre with the film. In every horror movie, there is always a certain character depicted. If they weren't in the movie, well, you might not really like it too much. The trademark characters are:<br /><br />"The Lead Character": Carly (Elisha Cuthbert) "The Lead Character's Boyfriend": Wade (Jared Padalecki) "The Lead Character's Sibling/(Soon-To-Be)Reformed Jerk": Nick (Chad Michael Murray) "The Annoying Sluttish Character": Paige (Paris Hilton) "Characters Who Are Just Around To Look Pretty": Dalton (Jon Abrahams) & Blake (Robert Ri'chard)<br /><br />With those characters, it makes it slightly predictable who will die and who will live. Obviously, you know who will with what I just typed. The movie may be predictable (in fact, I had a pretty good idea who would die just by watching the trailer), but it was still enjoyable. It may seem stupid (why is there a sugar mill in the middle of a deserted camp-site that wasn't there in the beginning?) at times, but it is very easy to watch. The comedy and gore were the perfect amount for weak-stomached movie-goers it does get gory, don't get me wrong, (less than "Final Destination 2) but it works very well. So in conclusion, this movie wasn't as hot as the fire the set went up in, but the temperature could still burn the "Wax".

This movie surprised me in a good way. From the box I got the impression that it was an action thriller but it was too funny to be a thriller, even though it was somewhat exciting.<br /><br />There's a lot of nice one-liners and funny situations in this movie and James Belushi was born to do Bill Manucci, he does a great job. The rest of the cast ain't half-bad either and especially Timothy Dalton is a treat.<br /><br />The story can get pretty confusing at times as new characters shows up during the film. Things get more complicated as nobody seldom tells the truth about things. If you don't pay attention things might get a bit messy in the end but I really liked it.<br /><br />Louis Morneau isn't all that well known but he has done a perfectly OK job with this one and I never really grew impatient while watching the movie.<br /><br />Made men is well worth checking out.

I love the way he experiments. Ab Tak Chappan was a thrill to watch just as much Satya and company was. Jatin the new comer also lived up to his role and Nana Patekar was at his best. Suchak was really irritating but I think he fit the character he was playing - he had really ugly teeth. The story has a great progress and no songs in the movie makes it better. I only wish he signs up Urmila for his other up coming movies. I think they are the best director and actress combination I have seen. I have not seen Naach as yet but I am looking forward for it. I for some reason don't find Antra Maali that exciting to watch on the screen - unlike Urmila.

Police, investigations, murder, suspicion: we are all so acquainted with them in movies galore. Most of the films nowadays deal with crime which is believed to involve viewers, to provide them with a thrilling atmosphere. However, most of thrill lovers will rather concentrate on latest movies of that sort forgetting about older ones. Yet, it occurs that these people may easily be misled. A film entirely based on suspicion may be very interesting now despite being more than 20 years old...it is GARDE A VUE, a unique movie by Claude Miller.<br /><br />Is there much of the action? Not really since the events presented in the movie take place in a considerably short time. But the way they are executed is the movie's great plus. Jerome Charles Martinaud (Michel Serrault) is being investigated by Inspector Gallien (Lino Ventura) and Insector Belmont (Guy Marchand). It's a New Year's Eve, a rainy evening and not very accurate for such a meeting. Yet, after the rape and murder of two children, at the dawn of the old year, the door of suspicion must be open at last. In other words, (more quoted from the movie), it must be revealed who an evil wolf really is. To achieve this, one needs lots of effort and also lots of emotions from both parties...<br /><br />Some people criticize the script for being too wordy. Yet, I would ask them: what should an investigation be like if not many questions and, practically, much talk. This wordiness touches the very roots of the genre. In no way is this boring but throughout the entire film, it makes you, as a viewer, as an observer, involved. Moreover, the film contains well made flashbacks as the stories are being told. Not too much and not too little of them - just enough to make the whole story clearer and more interesting. The most memorable flashbacks, for me, are when Chantal (Romy Schneider), Martinaud's wife, talks about one lovely Christmas... But these flashbacks also contain the views of the places, including the infamous beach. It all wonderfully helped me keep the right pace. And since I saw GARDE A VUE, I always mention this film as one of the "defenders" of French cinema against accusations of mess and chaos. <br /><br />But those already mentioned aspects may not necessarily appeal to many viewers since they might not like such movies and still won't find the content and its execution satisfactory. Yet, GARDE A VUE is worth seeing also for such people. Why? For the sake of performances. But here don't expect me to praise foremost Romy Schneider. GARDE A VUE is not Romy Schneider vehicle. She does a terrific job as a mother who is deeply in despair for a lost child. She credibly portrays a person who is calm, concrete, who does not refuse an offered cup of tea but who does not want to play with words. Her part which includes a profound talk of life and duty is brilliant, more credible than the overly melancholic role of Elsa in LA PASSANTE DE SANS SOUCI. It is still acted. However, Romy Schneider does not have much time on screen. Practically, she appears for the first time after 45 minutes from the credits; she, as a wife and a different viewpoint, comes symbolically with the New Year, at midnight. Her role is a purely supporting one. Who really rocks is Lino Ventura. He IS the middle aged Inspector Antoine Gallien who wants to find out the truth, who is aware that his questions are "missiles" towards the other interlocutor but does not hesitate. He is an inspector who, having been married three times, is perfectly acknowledged of women's psyche. He is the one who does not regard his job as a game to play but a real service. Finally, he is a person who does not find it abnormal to sit there on New Year's Eve. Michel Serrault also does a fine job expressing fear, particularly in the final scenes of the movie. But thumbs up for Mr Ventura. Brilliant!<br /><br />As far as memorable moments are concerned, this is not the sort of film in which this aspect is easily analyzed. The entire film is memorable, has to be seen more than once and has to be felt with its atmosphere and, which I have not mentioned before, gorgeous music. For me, the talk of Chantal and Inspector Gallien is the most brilliant flawless moment. You are there with the two characters, you experience their states of mind if you go deeper into what you see.<br /><br />GARDE A VUE is a very interesting film, a must see for thrill lovers and connoisseurs of artistic performances. New Year has turned and...is it now easier to open the door? You'll find out when you decide to see the memorably directed movie by Claude Miller. 8/10

Difficult to call The Grudge a horror movie. At best it made me slightly jump from surprise at a couple of moments.<br /><br />If one forgets the (failed) frightening dimension and looks at other sides of the movie, he is again disappointed. The acting is OK but not great. The story can be somewhat interesting at the beginning, while one is trying to get what's happening. But toward the end one understands there is not much to understand. "Scary" elements seems sometimes to have been added to the script without reason...<br /><br />So... (yawn) See this movie it if you have nothing more interesting to do, like cutting the carrots or looking at the clouds.

My comments may be a bit of a spoiler, for what it's worth. Stop now if you care enough....<br /><br />Saving Grace should have been titled "A Paper-Thin Excuse for Old British Women to Get High On-Screen." This film is dumb. The incidental music is an annoyance as are the obvious, hackneyed tunes that sporadically pop up to comment on the narrative ("Spirit in the Sky," for example - Oh, I get it!) This is basically a Cheech and Chong movie made credible by its stodgy English setting and Brenda Blethyn's overwhelming power to inflict emotion on an audience using her voice alone. I could literally hear the folks over at High Times magazine receiving their jollies over the enormous "buds" that litter this picture. Worst scene? Easy. Brenda attempts to peddle her illicit wares on the street of London in a blaring white dress-suit. Not funny. Not original. Not interesting. Not a good movie. The 7.2 rating is the result of zealots over-voting. Don't waste your time...

I'm overwhelmed by the work of Jim Carrey. I keep on getting this movie stuck in my head. The Grinch liking Martha May, Cindy Lou(who's very annoying; her sweet innocence) who tries to get the Grinch in the Christmas spirit, the childhood of the Grinch (very funny!), and moreover the weak obvious ending with- Christmas isn't all about presents. I have to say, I felt stupid walking out of the theater with a bunch of babies and toddlers laughing and so forth, but this movie was a good full-lengthed adaption of Dr.Seuss's short film and IS for all ages.

One of the best and most exciting of all conspiracy thrillers, (there were a number of such film in the 1970's). This one is about an accident at a Neuclear Reactor and of the attempts to cover it up. Jack Lemmon is the employee who realizes just how dangerous the plant is and Jane Fonda is the crusading television reporter who takes the story on board and both players are at their best.<br /><br />The events portrayed in the film are, of course, terrifying and not in the least bit far-fetched, (much of what happens here happened in real life at Three Mile Island), and although it now looks like something a period piece it, nevertheless, highlights just how fragile and dangerous a world we have created for ourselves. Expect a number of similar films about the effects of global warming any time soon, (and not rubbish like "The Day After Tomorrow" either).

Shamefull as it may be, this movie actually made it to the videomarket, bringing shame on my proud country - any attempt to watch this movie without stopping or pausing, will be a fruitless attempt. one cannot bear to see more than one hour of this, then having either fallen asleep, or visited the bathroom for puking.<br /><br />Note: if you haven't seen anything else from Denmark, please remember this:<br /><br />some things were never meant to be - but still some idiot goes ahead and makes it anyway!

does anybody know why this movie is called the couch trip? i was just watching it and am still not sure why this title was picked the movie was very funny and its probably my favorite Dan Aykroyd performance it even beats out his Ghostbusters performance i had never heard of the movie before i seen it in a sears store i read the back and thought it sounded good so i bought and when i finally got a chance to watch it, i thought it was better than what i had originally expected. this movie rates as good as animal house and national lampoon's vacation in my mind i wish comedies that have come out lately were written as well as this one was nothing sad happens in it and the bad stuff that does happen are also funny parts if anyone else feels this way and would like to read a comedy script for a movie that doesn't have a sad situation in it email me at [email protected]

This movie could have been great. It is not in my opinion. The storyline is fragmented, the editor appears not to be able to choose between a Guy Ritchie-style of storytelling and a more straightforward one. There is a great emphasis on excessive violence, including torture. Too much so if you ask me. The characters are very shallow and stereo-typed, I would have liked to see more depth there. It is hard to identify with the main character. As a result the movie remains shallow as a whole.<br /><br />The movie says it gives the spectator an inside view of the British criminal underclass, more in particular the Essex underclass. Football-hooligans, steroids, cocaine, heroine and violence, lots and lots of violence. Violence resulting from paranoia and fear in general. In this movie no-one seems to use his (or her) brain, we're looking at a bunch of animals in clothes. Like I said, there is not much of a plot and the storytelling leaves a lot to be desired. <br /><br />If you're a male below 30, like gore and hardcore violence and think that's entertaining, than this is a movie for you. If you're looking for a movie portraying real people with a well developed storyline, suspense and depth, well... you can skip this one.

I don't have words to describe how good this movie is. Only a genius like Amrita Pritam could have written such a real depiction of the days of partition. The movie kept haunting me for many days.<br /><br />Urmila did the role of her life in this movie. She put life in the role of Puroo and Manoj Vajpai did no less in his role as Rashid. It is hard to imagine anyone other than these two doing the role of Puroo and Rashid. The Punjabi costumes looked so natural on Urmila and Manoj looked like a natural Punjabi Mussalmaan.<br /><br />Sandhali Sinha as Lajjo and Suri as Ramchand did fabulous job. Priyanshu Chattarjee did good work as Triloki.<br /><br />Some of the scenes you just can't get out of your mind. When Puroo meets Lajjo for the first time, it brings tears to your eyes. The climax is just killer. I was expecting a tragic ending but thankfully, the ending was wonderful.<br /><br />This movie is in the same category as Pakeezah, Mughal-e-Azam, Banaras etc. Not to be missed.

This is a cheapy biography of a star of the black and white minstrel shows, a certain Dixie Boy Johnson. Whether this person ever really existed I don't know, but considering the cast lists a certain "Lee Lasses White" and Roscoe Karns playing said character as well, I assume the man did exist and that this is a white-washed (pardon the pun) version of his career. The plot, such as it is, follows Dixie Boy from career heights to depression at the death of his wife in childbirth, his abandonment of the child to friends, and his return at his daughter's sixteenth birthday and stage debut for reconciliation. Another forgotten man, Benny Fields, plays Dixie Boy. The man has a lovely baritone voice but no acting talent whatsoever and is a boring lump on screen. Gladys George valiantly tries her best to enliven the works to no avail. Judy Clark does the best impersonation of Betty Hutton I've ever seen although I believe she thought she was being herself. The scoring replete with many musical numbers for its short running time of 70 minutes earned a deserved Oscar nom. Worth a look.

So on the Chills Network on cable they are having "Vampire Month", I'm such a dork, but I love vampires. So after a few duds that they showed I was pretty disappointed, but then I noticed Sleepwalkers was written by Stephen King. So I decided to go ahead and check it out, well much to my surprise, this movie was really bad. Most Stephen King films are entertaining and some are very scary. While Sleepwalkers was bad, it was a beautiful kind of bad. I had a good time laughing at this movie and just taking it for what it was. I've never read Sleepwalkers, from what I understand this is the only real vampire story by King, so I can't really compare book to film. I don't know if it was just my TV, but Sleepwalkers looked like it was made for TV. The special effects were corny and the story was a bit far fetched, even if it is fantasy, it had a lot of problems. <br /><br />Charles Brady and his mother Mary are vampires who feed off the life force of virgin women. They are considerably more resilient than humans and have powers of both telekinesis and illusion. Their one weakness is cats, who are not only able to see through their illusions but whose claws are capable of inflicting severe to fatal wounds upon them. They also maintain an incestuous relationship. Charles and Mary have taken up residence in a small Indiana town. Charles attends the local high school, and there he meets Tanya Robertson in his creative writing class. Tanya does not suspect the real reason why Charles wants her so much; to take her life force for his mother, who is starving. At first, it seems that Charles has fallen in love with Tanya. On their first date, however, a picnic at the nearby cemetery, Charles attempts to drain the life force from Tanya while kissing her. As it happens, Deputy Sheriff Andy Simpson who had earlier tried to pull Charles over for speeding, drives by the cemetery and notices Charles' car. When Tanya runs to him for help, Charles tracks Andy down and kills him. When Charles then turns to resume his life force-depleting make out session with Tanya, the deputy's cat, Clovis, rises to the occasion and nearly kills Charles by scratching him in the face and chest. Mortally wounded by Clovis, Charles staggers back home to Mary. Mary then seeks vengeance on Tanya's family.<br /><br />So to sum this movie up basically you should expect the cheese to overflow. The scene where Charles attacks Tanya for the first time is very cliché and you almost vote for Charles to win just because Tanya is one of the dumbest female leads in horror movies. Then you gotta love the scene where Mary has a gun and shoots it at a cop car and somehow the whole thing explodes, God bless Hollywood explosions and exaggerations. I'm taking the movie for what it is, it's just so deliciously bad that it turns into a dark comedy for me that I could just enjoy making fun of. I'm not sure if this is what Stephen King wanted to see for his story, but he does have his typical cameo in the film. So my suggestion if you watch this movie, just take it for what it is and don't over think it, it's mindless entertainment with corny effects, bad casting, a silly story and enough cats to make the crazy cat lady from The Simpson's say "Wow, that's a lot of cats".<br /><br />4/10

The audience sat in silence through almost the entire film, with only a few, rare, occasional chuckles. The character of Maxwell Smart was so inconsistent, I felt whip-lashed. When it is convenient for the plot, Smart behaves like a master spy. At other times, he acts like an imbecile. They lift many classic lines from the television series, but they don't work in this version. The classic "missed it by this much" is funny if it is spoken with attempted braggadocio by someone who is an obvious failure - but it loses all humor when spoken by someone who is qualified. To a slightly lesser degree, many of the other characters move at a dizzying pace from skilled to cartoonish incompetent. Siegfried, the main villain, would seem to be intelligent, but he makes decisions that make no damned sense at all. Still, none of the characters in the film is as incompetent as the writers of this mess. I am utterly depressed that so many IMDb users think this was good.

This isn't one of Arbuckle's or Keaton's better films, that's for sure. Fatty's wife is tired of all his heavy drinking, so she takes him to a sanitarium where a psychiatrist (Keaton) claims to have a guaranteed cure! Well, once there, Arbuckle accidentally eats a thermometer and is taken to surgery. Then, he escapes and is chased about the place where he meets a cute girl who also wants to escape. Finally, despite staff chasing them about, they escape at which point it becomes apparent that the girl is crazy and Arbuckle is soon recaptured. However, he awakens and everything AFTER the surgery has all been a dream--there was no sexy crazy girl and Dr. Keaton isn't as big an incompetent as he seemed in the dream.<br /><br />A lack of humor is the biggest problem with the film. Sure, making fun of mentally ill people is pretty low, but in its day it was guaranteed laughs. I'd laugh, too, if there was just something funny to respond to! A lot of energy and that's all.<br /><br />FYI--during one of the chase sequences, Fatty wonders into a race for men over 200 pounds (wow, what are the odds of that?). And, shortly after this, he backs into a post on which the number 5 was just freshly painted. As a result, the five is now on the back of Fatty's shirt and he looks like a regular participant. HOWEVER, the number SHOULD have appeared backwards on Fatty's shirt but came out front-ways--a mistake, as they should have realized the mirror image would have been a backwards 5.

I think Dark Angel is great! First season was excellent, and had a good plot. With Max(Jessica Alba) as an escaped X-5, manticore creation, trying to adapt to a normal life, but still "saving the world". And being hunted by manticore throughout the season which gives the series some extra spice.<br /><br />The second season though suddenly became a bit odd compared to the first. The plot kinda disappeared, and the series lost a little of it's charm, mostly because of all the weird "creatures" appearing. Don't get me wrong the second season is good, but with a little bit to much of the "manticores". However, they managed to get back to a new promising plot in the closing episodes of season 2, in which I had a lot of hopes to see more of.<br /><br />So I really wish they could start making new episodes. And with James Cameron behind this it can't go wrong. So as a conclusion I would say it's a great series, however I'm still hoping for a third season!

Well, TiVo recorded this because of Angelina Jolie. It had 2.5 stars. It seemed promising. It went downhill fast.<br /><br />There is much overacting, even from Angelina. She's about 20 and playing a 16 year old. There are three characters that are supposed to be Italian. Everyone else is Italian- American. The native Italian accents were good, I thought. The young male lead is cute, my wife says. Everyone else in this movie is a fat Italian woman. Even the men.<br /><br />I should have known that when Dick Van Patten was cast as a randy doctor, that that was a bad sign. The two couples chasing their kids around are like the four Italian Stooges.<br /><br />My wife would not let go of the remote. Hopefully she was not taking makeup, clothing or decorating tips. It was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. It was hidegarishous.<br /><br />Cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. If this movie shows up on your TV, do yourself a favor and ram your head through the TV screen instead. You'll be glad you did. The only movie I've ever seen that was worse than this was "Hamburger: The Movie". Or maybe "Deadly Friend".

Review: Nunsploitation films. They've been around since forever. A few that pop to mind are the Mexican devil worshiping movie Alucarda, Night of the Demons 2, The Convent and of course Dante Tomasellis Desecration. Cant blame somebody for trying to exploit a religious/holy image and twisting it around to make it scary. If done right, it works. Here comes the most recent addition to the nunsploitation sub-genre simply titled The Nun.<br /><br />The story is about this group of girls that live in a Catholic school. In this school there's a Nun who is particularly cruel to one of the girls. The girls acting in self defense against the abusive nun accidentally kill her and then decide to bury her and tell no one. Fast forward 18 years later and the nun is back searching for revenge from those who killed her.<br /><br />This movie was produced by Brian Yuznas Fantastic Factory. You know, the company that makes horror movies in Spain. Need a reminder of the kind of movies that this company churns out? Well heres a small reminder: Arachnid, Darkness, Romasanta: The Werewolf Hunt, Rottweiler. You get the picture. About the only really good movie that this company has produced (in my opinion) was Stuart Gordons Dagon. Thats it. Oh no, wait, I believe they also produced the excellent Christian Bale vehicle The Machinist. But thats it. So when I consciously rented this movie, I knew I wasn't going to watch anything that was mind blowingly good. Still, with all that mental preparation I was disappointed.<br /><br />One of the only good things this movie has going for it is its slick look. The movie has some nice cinematography. It doesn't look like a cheap horror film. The movies special effects were alright, with The Nun being able to travel through water. Well, that was an image that lended it self for some cool fx moments that sometimes scratched into cheesy territory but sometimes were cool enough to watch. I dug that scene with the Nun hurling herself at people like a bucket of water. Its not a particularly deadly move, but it made for a cool visual. There's some gore here but not a lot of it. One particular scene involving an elevator death was cool, but sadly the movie hit its peak with that scene. And it was only half way through. After that, nothing really cool happens and the movie deludes into an incredible borefest.<br /><br />The movie just turns into The Nun popping up every now and then to give us a boo scare, she would kill someone and then CUT! We get back to the characters talking crap, going through rooms, opening doors, you get the drill. And I just personally hate it when a horror movie turns into that. People opening doors and going into rooms. Boring! And when the characters do talk its terrible dialog. In one particularly stupid scene a character decides right out of the blue that the nun turns into flesh and blood whenever she is in the water so thats they way to go to try and kill her. And everyone just says OK! And they all elaborate this plan to kill the nun in a water tank. Now, who gave that guy this info and why did the others just take it for granted? Who the hell knows, but its scenes like that that make the movie look stupid.<br /><br />And yet another thing that got in the way of my enjoyment of this film was the fact that they used Spanish actors who have a very thick accent. When they try to speak English its very hard to make out what the hell they are trying to say. Id prefer to have them be dubbed then try and figure out what they are saying and become frustrated. The fact that this DVD has no English subtitles didn't help matters either.<br /><br />So in conclusion, this is a movie that has some slick visuals, nice sound effects but a terrible terrible script. I guess this just goes to show that you might have the biggest budget or the best special effects, but if your movie has a bad script with terrible characters and situations that your audience cant connect with, then you've still got a bad movie. Such was the case with The NUN.<br /><br />If you want to have some real fun with evil nuns, rent any of the films I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Now, as for the makers of this film, they should go say ten hail maries and light fifty candles to their saint of choice to see if they'll be forgiven for making this sinfully terrible film.<br /><br />Rating: 2 out of 5.

I can admit that the screenplay isn't very good, and that it has some slow parts, but all of you critics of this movie need to learn how to have some fun. First of all, the performances are great (Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, Kiefer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria. Michael Douglas proves he has still got it, and Kim Basinger plays a very interesting character as the cheating wife. Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, play the dynamic duo, both adding their incredible talent to the pot. And second of all, this movie is the most fun I have had in years in a Theodore. Its plain and simple, if you want to go to the movies, and have a lot of fun see, The Sentinel.

This movie is worth watching if you enjoy marvelling over special effects. There are some interesting visuals.<br /><br />Aside from that, it's typical nineties/aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance. True to the title.<br /><br />It's not worth picking apart the story. That's like performing brain surgery on a dinosaur. There's not much there to begin with. It's nothing original and not very special. So don't go in for the story at all. Just look at the effects.<br /><br />As has been mentioned, it got a little flashy at the end, diluting the purity of great FX treatment of an invisible (and at times half invisible) man. However if you ignore the "standard" pyrotechnics, it's a sight to behold (or not to behold).<br /><br />All in all, it's a decent FX film worth seeing for that purpose and that alone.

For my money, probably the best film - or at least the most purely cinematic film - director Ford ever made. The dialog is swift, clipped, to the point.l The story starts at the very beginning and only ends with the final credits. Ford uses a relatively small cast, but directs them and photographs them with a verve and a sweep of epic proportions. Grimly realistic, warmly amusing, brilliantly acted (hard to believe Johnsonj couldn't become a leading man after this), with the best photography and editing in any American black-and-white film. Owes an awful lot to Sergei Eisenstein's editing technique, but never as coolly detached or 'scientific' as Eisenstein could frequently get. And a great musical score. A magnificent panorama of an important and poorly understood episode in American history.<br /><br />One little quibble: it's not clear why the film involves the Mormons, who, as far as I know, were never the pacifists the Quakers and Amish were. This confusion leaves a slightly bitter after-taste.<br /><br />However, the rest of the film is such a feast, this is easy to ignore. In all other ways, a true masterpiece of American cinema that needs to be revived and looked at again (and again and again).

This is one of the most outstanding horror movies i've ever seen in my life time. Forget the exorcist and all the other hype horror movies out there.John Carpenter as made a tour-de-force horror epic with outstanding special-effects great performances from Kurt Russell and co and a great soundtrack that will haunt you for ever! The greatest thing about this movie after 17 years is it has'nt dated it looks fresh and new and you don't get many movies like this.Back in 1982 this was up against E.T. and of course it failded and was a box-office bomb. Over the years THE THING as made a cult following from video and t.v sales and as many new fans. In the end this movie kicks ass and to me it as never loss it's edge to scare the pants off of you and to me that a horror movie. Long live John Carpenter!!

First off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend<br /><br />-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park three<br /><br />overall D-Wars is a pile

Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".<br /><br />The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.<br /><br />This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.<br /><br />Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.<br /><br />As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.

This movie truly shows the farce and hypocrisy of Indian society. What it tries to show you is only ONE side of the story. The other side of the story is the hidden emotional and mental abuse of Indian children which this movie does not show.<br /><br />"Indian Parents" are culpable for the following: a. Destroying the individuality of the children by making them completely dependent on the parents at a very early age. Such children grow up to be Adults only in physical looks but remain children in minds. Since everything has been provided to them by their great Indian parents, They children automatically do not feel the need to work hard at something or learn the basics of human communication with other human beings apart from their parents.<br /><br />B. I can show you so many Indian parents who try to prevent their kids making friends, going out or prevent them to do anything which starts making them to grow into adults.<br /><br />The reason why they do is the same selfishness. Indian parents "expect" their children to take care of them when they grow old. They do no savings for themselves and once they reach the age of 50...They cry out LOUD......We have grown old now and so we are dependent on you children since we have done the GREAT SERVICE of bringing you to this world and taking care of you and making you intellectually weak.<br /><br />Most of the Indian parents at the age of 50 have dilapidated bodies and health and are financially completely insecure. Most feel that they ABSOLUTELY have no need to take care of themselves since they "expect" their kids to take care of them.<br /><br />In the west the opposite of that happens. People start planning at the age of 20 about their retirement and once they retire they are financially secure.<br /><br />Indian parents do NOTHING of that sort since like I said they have brought the kids in the world and what better investment at that?.<br /><br />I am a victim of my Indian parents (i am sure there are countless other Indian kids like me), who have grown up physically but are still struggling with their lives on THEIR OWN and they continue to have pestering 50 year olds who cry out loud for HELP all the time.<br /><br />This movie shows only ONE side of the story.....UTTER piece of JUNK

i have rated this movie a 1/10 and have done this in good nature. this movie is not as it seems and i don;t get the point of it. take the first joke for instance. Their's that sign at the beginning to start. well that was OK but then they start having some guy talking about the hood and then he dies then theirs the other guys who talks then he dies after the other guy says people don;t get to their birthday with out dieing. and he gets a cake now. then he dies. <br /><br />The jokes are just stupid they are;t that smart and i would have thought they would have been better from some one like the directors of scary movie:<br /><br />Shawn Wayans (written by) & Marlon Wayans (written by) & Phil Beauman (written by)<br /><br />but it sucked and i hop next time they want to make another comedy they make some good jokes not lame ones.

I'm pleased that this was the work of foreign cinematographers because it can't be accused of unfair bias. With absolutely no cause, the Jacksonville cops rush to judgment in this case and pick the first black suspect to accuse of the murder of a white, foreign tourist. They picked a 15 yr. old kid who is just about as close to a saint as you could randomly find and then make fools of themselves trying to pin an unlikely case against him. In addition to the unfairness resulting from the blatant prejudice there is the matter of 6 months of unjust imprisonment of a completely innocent young black teenager. It makes one question whether as a society we should compensate those who are charged, imprisoned and subsequently found innocent. This docudrama is well produced, professionally recorded and presented in a captivating package from which you won't want to take a 1 minute break. If you care about social justice, don't miss this one. It certainly deserved its Oscar.

Savaged when it came out, this film now looks handsome and sounds great. A feast of intelligent thoughtful acting, from Gielgud, Kenneth Haigh, Harry Andrews and especially Anton Walbrook,and a moving central performance from the beautiful and incredibly young Jean Seberg. Preminger doesn't jump around and show off- his long slow takes encourage you to listen and reflect, and Graham Greene's script condenses Shaw without sacrificing complexity.The piece has the look of a made for TV movie, and is certainly studio bound but none the worse for that. Too many contemporary movies on 'historical' themes cannot resist dumbing down. What would Mel Gibson have made of the Maid? Many drooling shots of her on the rack probably, then crisping up on the BBQ as the flames take hold. Preminger does none of this. The burning is shown mainly through a guilt-stricken reaction. There are a few weak performances, but not enough to cause any serious damage. I caught this movie on TV and was not expecting to watch it through, but I was gripped . In our age of religious fundamentalism and sacrifice, Joan's story has unexpected resonance.

I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.<br /><br />Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.

The director spent a lot of time making the scenes look real right down to the historical photos and all the sounds of the old west bustle. Too bad the Producers and Writer/Director, Michael Cimino, spent zero time on any of the historical facts of what the Johnson County war was really about. A lot of the war was over how public lands should be used for grazing. The cattlemen didn't want the poor sheep herders on the land to compete for forage on this cold, windswept plateau. The entire epic makes no mention of grazing sheep which was one of the most important reasons for the war.<br /><br />The worst scene is the battle between the peasants and the hired killers. The peasants are shown circling the gunmen like a bunch of Indians would do in much earlier Hollywood movies. The true fact is that Johnson County Sheriff William (Red) Angus, with a posse of 200 to 300 men, intercepted the gunmen and trapped them in a barn at the TA ranch. I doubt any women took part in the siege. <br /><br />Ellen (Ella also known as Cattle Kate) Watson and her second husband, James Averell, were hanged by a lynch mob about three years before the Johnson County invasion. Ella was never a prostitute. This was a canard spread by the Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) in order to discredit her. The fact that the plot makes her out to be a brothel madam only serves the interests of the WSGA.<br /><br />I object to the use of names of real people in a plot that is so obviously fiction. There is no fact in the events, time lines, or backgrounds of the characters. Why Michael Cimino would use real names of people who were loosely connected with the Johnson County war (and events leading up to it) is beyond me.<br /><br />The movie could have been much more interesting if it had dwelt on the political ramifications of the Federal Government intervention in a State Government's affairs and what happened after the WSGA gunmen were saved by the Calvary. Some effort was made to prosecute the Cattlemen who were responsible by the Johnson County attorney. But since Johnson county could not afford the court costs and the Governor of Wyoming, Amos W. Barber, backed the WSGA, the charges were eventually dropped.<br /><br />Overall I think the movie was just an excuse to show Isabelle Huppert naked for much of the three and 3/4 hours of running time on the DVD version.

Little Mosque is one of the most boring CBC comedies I have ever seen. They have a way of producing the easiest comedy programming they can for the oldest most-easily-offended viewers which for CBC means 85 year old farmers in Saskatchewan. The jokes are all predictable and so deathly lame I can't believe it. The performances are very hammy and over acted but I don't blame the actors since those kind of one dimensional stereotyped characters are probably exactly what the CBC asked for and demanded. Very lame show with bad jokes they tried to present as "controversial" well it is less controversial than the other boring CBC comedies like The Hour Has 22 Minutes, Royal Canadian Air Farce and Rick Mercer's Report.

I have always loved the ironic symbolism and brilliant cinematography of Coppola's masterpiece. I was lucky enough to meet Martin Sheen outside the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium one night in 1981, as he waited for Charlie and Emilio to leave a concert. He was very humble about the praise I shared with him for this work of art, especially his portrayal of the young Captain. This is, without a doubt, a must see, a complete 10 and an important part of American Film History. "Charlie Don't Surf". Robert Duvall's famous line (the other one) does not need repeating as it has become an oft repeated anthem and his Pattonesque character will long be remembered as a classic American war hawk in the John Wayne tradition. It is a surprise to see how young Laurence Fishburne looks.

The historical inaccuracies of this film have been well documented. It was never intended to be serious history but an entertaining saga and there it succeeds. Errol Flynn was never better as this role was tailored for him. Olivia DeHavilland was never more beautiful. Arthur Kennedy never more villainous. Anthony Quinn never more noble than as Crazy Horse. It had much humor and pathos and held your interest throughout. The one historical aspect I found most glaringly inaccurate was the final "Last Stand" which occurred on the banks of the Little Big Horn. The film version was filmed in a desert with no river in sight. However, I still consider it marvelous entertainment typical of Hollywood's golden age.

Kept my attention from start to finish. Great performances added to this tremendous film. Mr. Pacino once again gives us another brilliant character to enjoy.

Looking back at the career of Alfred Hitchcock, it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. It is likely a sign of how ahead of his time Hitchcock was, always attempting to push the envelope, and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining, but always with a deeper, more poignant motive on his mind. Strangers on a Train, one of Hitchcock's first and more underrated hits, is a perfect example of these traits - an entertaining and suspenseful story, even when viewed over 50 years later, yes, but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique. <br /><br />Arguably one of the pioneering "suspense thrillers", Strangers on a Train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects, but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). The brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick, careful editing are what really make the film stand out, drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience's focus even in slower scenes. If there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker Hitchcock was, simply watching five minutes of Strangers on a Train should be enough to disavow such sentiments; every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed, all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. Sadly enough, there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing - Bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable, and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film's most tense and engaging scene. These are only brief moments, but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film.<br /><br />But what really makes Strangers on a Train stand out is the story premise. As Hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée, it's wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. Sure it's fairly straightforward, but the concept of "swapping murders" is simply one that would not fly in films of today's day and age, which makes it all the more entertaining to watch; the film's brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. One can't help but notice the deeper themes Hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well, especially the concept of "darkness in humanity's heart", demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder, as well as Bruno's own cavalier attitude towards death. Hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (Bruno popping a child's balloon with his cigarette is priceless), and irony, shooting suspenseful scenes in happy, easy-going environments, such as the iconic carnival scenes, to create an even more eerie atmosphere. This may be a suspense thriller, yes, but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable. <br /><br />The antagonistic figure of Bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by Robert Walker, sadly in his last film role, but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes Strangers on a Train so memorable, as the character is a marvel to behold. Here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure, all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. Rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment, Bruno is a calm, controlled, psychotic mess. He speaks of murder in such an offhand tone, yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. Bruno could seem to represent the "Id", as Freud would put it, the inner, darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. It makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure, Guy Haines, and how bland and uninteresting he seems, almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing. <br /><br />Yet despite this implied message, Hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for Guy at every turn, and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. It's a testament to actor Farley Granger's talent that despite Robert Walker's villain easily stealing the show, Granger's hero still comes across as sympathetic, still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. Superb support is given by Ruth Roman, who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure, Kasey Rogers giving a stunning performance as Guy's horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife, and Patricia Hitchcock, proving that she is far more talented than being simply "the director's daughter" would imply. The superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful Walker) really bring the film to life, adding so much more merit to the film than simply Hitchcock's breathtaking stylistics. <br /><br />All in all, Strangers on a Train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers, but it's still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems, considering it was released half a century ago. Once again, Hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique, and the film's surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. Highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience! <br /><br />-9/10

This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.<br /><br />Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.<br /><br />Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).<br /><br />This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).<br /><br />Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.

Why it's none other than Ator played hilariously bad by Miles O'Keefe. Surprisingly I had the misfortune of sitting through this turkey before Mystery Science Theater 3000 tore it to pieces. I highly recommend checking out the MST3K version since it's hilarious and one of their best episodes ever.<br /><br />The movie on it's own is basically the kind of typical B-movie crud that Italian film-makers were churning out in the early to mid 80's. This film was apparently made to cash in on the Conan craze, but it fails miserably on all counts.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for the scenes where Ator fights a giant rubber snake and also manages to make a complete hang-glider during a cutaway.<br /><br />"Thong, fish is ready!"<br /><br />rating: the movie itself-1 The MST3K version: 10

Thomas Clay has been mixing with the wrong types. That's the trouble with young people these days, they have no respect.<br /><br />Seriously this film should be avoided at all costs. The action in the main body of the film is slow and rather stodgy and ambles to the drug crazed ending as if, like it's director, it has no where better to go. We are introduced to the main title character who is a bit of an outsider, we see him at school and at home not quite fitting in, feeling awkward in himself as so many adolescents do. Robert falls in with bad lads and starts missing school and taking drugs and before you know it he is a psycho rapist.<br /><br />The film is really about Clay's total failure to understand the links between violence imagery and violent acts. Clay seems to think a generation of crazed youth are made evil by scenes of war on our TVs. yet he has filmed the most disgusting piece of SIMULATED violence. Is this guy for real?<br /><br />If Clay has not seen YouTube perhaps he is naive and unaware of will be done with the brutal climax scene from his film? All anyone will want to see is the most hideous scene from the end of the film and I am sure that will be what sticks with people. <br /><br />The rest of the film is pointless for in committing such an act of violence to film Clay not only damns young people who are actively engaged in preventing war, he also damns himself as perpetrator of extreme, tasteless violence for no better reason than his own personal celebrity status.<br /><br />Shame on all involved.

Buck's role as The Kahn brings to mind Bob Barker (of The Price is right) running a country the same way he runs his show. But there's lots more to chuckle and snort through in this turkey. Kurt Thomas as the baby-faced "hero" displays some considerable acrobatic skills, but not a whit of acting talent whatsoever. There's a few spooky moments (in the Village of Crazies, mostly), and some mildly impressive martial arts sequences. But any given "Ninja" movie will give you much more entertainment, and you won't feel as guilty about laughing.

This might quite possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. I knew it was a B-movie before watching it (it was actually the reason for watching it), but I'd never thought it could be this bad. The title promises Dracula in space and does deliver, however, the story makes no real use of the fact that Casper van Dien's character is a descendant of Van Helsing. And watch out for the ending of the movie, it comes at you fast. I've never seen an ending scream out "And now we're over budget!" in a clearer fashion. Their resolution of the movie was rather comic though, the story had so obviously painted itself into a corner. If you feel you have to see it, watch it with a friend who shares your love of B-movies. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have made it to the end.

Though I did not begin to read the "Classics" in literature until I was 47, it's never too late. Jane Eyre is a favorite for many reasons, mainly because there isn't a part of the book I liked less, only parts I enjoyed more. The 1983 TV mini-series with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton was everything I hoped it would be. I saw it as a full length movie in 2006. Dalton's 'Mr. Rochester' was very good but I absolutely loved Zelah's 'Jane Eyre'. Relecting on another 'Classics' movie I saw recently, I was disappointed in the production, direction and dialogue. It was only faithful to the avarice and arrogance of Hollywood. Artistic license to the great works in literature is nothing short of plagiarism. Using the title after such license is fraud. Leave it to the Brits to get this one right (among others). You won't be able to reread the book without reliving the movie with it's proper context and spirit. Well done BBC.

A group of douche-bag teenagers go up to an old mining town in hopes of finding gold nuggets. The one hitch in the hair-brained scheme is that the ancient supernatural miner whom the gold belongs to doesn't wish to part with his treasure so easily and so begins to dispatch the interlopers accordingly. <br /><br />Literally cliché-sprouting dialog, horrible acting, some insanely terrible 'southern dialect' and a lame unmemorable killer who resembles Jeepers Creepers (without the aforementioned's predilection of young boys naturally) combine to make this stinker just about unwatchable. Even cult legend actress Karen Black in a small role can't save this aberration.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Elina Madison shows (badly lit) T&A <br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Where I saw it: TMCX

I ticked the "contains spoiler" box, in case I say anything that is a spoiler and don't realise I've said it until I re-read it after I've posted. So it's just in case.<br /><br />Anyhow, back to reviewing this film.<br /><br />I saw this film on skymovies earlier on this afternoon, and by the description Sky gives you (these people must be on acid) it sounded pretty good, but then when I actually got about 30 minutes into it, I was appalled. This film, in my opinion, has the worst scriptwriting and actors/actresses - ever. The young girl who falls in love with the boy from L.A after about 3 hours, is a really stupid, lame character, who has an annoying, whiney voice, and boff hair. -.-. Then there's her lover, who's an idiot, and is also very whiney. Actually, maybe they suit each other. Then there's the boy's mum, who's with him on holiday, and surprise, surprise - she's a doctor, and - oh my god, wait, there's even more unsuspected surprises! A virus suddenly breaks out on the island and she knows all about viruses! =O. SHOCK HORROR! Yeah, right. Lol. Then there's this insane religious lad, who keeps going on about "'erbs" or something, and how the Lord knows all. Everyone on the island seems to love him, yet he's actually a stubborn, arrogant, steroid-pumped (you really need to watch this film just for the scene where he comes out of the sea after a swim, his head is like tiny, and his body is MASSIVE. it's hilarious) buffoon who's had way too much to drink.<br /><br />Anyhow, after all these weirdo characters, including a stoned-looking taxi driver, the religious lad finally gives in to the doctor, and she takes a blood sample, and they get straight to work on finding the cure from that, because for some reason he's dramatically been saved, all down to "'erbs and God". AND OH MY GOD. YES, THERE'S ANOTHER Surprise!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT!! Just in the nick of time, with 11 minutes to go before everybody on the island drops dead in-fact, including her son and his girl, she finds the cure, and injects everybody, and it's all resolved!!! What a pathetic film. I mean, I knew it sounded an obvious ending from when I first started watching it, but I actually though it'd be good and have some sub-plot twists somewhere, but no-no, it was just boring and dry.<br /><br />Don't watch this film. You'll end up like me - stunned for 3 hours and then demanding the hour and a half you spent of your life watching it back.

2005 Toronto Film Festival Report It is official; "Takashi Miike" is whacked.<br /><br />The annual midnight screening of the new "Takashi Miike" film, "The Big Spook War" or "The Great Yokai War" or "Yôkai daisensô". Call it what you will this is a fanatical ride.<br /><br />Colin Geddes, the fearless programmer stated this film was originally geared towards children in Japan. Think of "Lord of the Rings" or "Neverending Story" for Japan. After the screening I can understand where they were going with that, but damn this is "Takashi Miike" after all. He directed the '01 film "Ichi the Killer", when it screening at the festival barf bags were handed out at the screening. And no, that wasn't just a marketing ploy.<br /><br />Plot Summary: A young boy with a troubled home life becomes "chosen," and he stumbles into the middle of a Great Spirit war, where he meets a group of friendly spirits who become his companions through his journey.<br /><br />This is not really for kids, well not 'too' young. Certainly see them getting scared shitless with some of these spirits (even the friendly ones) on display. This is unlike anything I've seen in the movie theater before. A fantasy naturally, some very funny (but dark) material. You will not be bored can guarantee that. Will this ever hit North America? Doubtful.<br /><br />My rating = B

This movie rocked!!!! saw it at a screener a coupla weeks ago. Kinda a strange story, where James Franco plays this jerk who marries Sienna Miller just to get out of the country and they go to Niagara Falls for their honeymoon. Don't wanna give it away cuz the movie isn't released yet but its totally cool and you would never expect the stuff that happens. I kinda thought I would hate it cuz its a romance but its also kinda twisted and stuff which I like a lot. The acting is really good and Sienna Miller is totally smokin' and plays this really sweet girl. I think she should do more roles like this. James plays a jerk but you end up liking him and the end of the movie is really good. David Carradine plays a cowboy and he is good. I gave this movie a 10 because I came out of the movie really liking it and wanting to see it again which I didn't expect and my girlfriend really liked it and cried. good date flick

"The Egyptian" is set during the reign of one of the most fascinating figures of the ancient world, the Pharaoh Akhnaton, who, thirteen centuries before Christ attempted to introduce a monotheistic religion, Atenism, to ancient Egypt. The main character, however, is not Akhnaton but rather the fictitious Sinuhe. As a baby, Sinuhe is found mysteriously floating in a basket on the river Nile and adopted by the physician Senmut and his wife. When he grows to manhood, he follows his adopted father into the medical profession, initially working (as his father did) among the poor of the city, but he comes to prominence after he and his friend, the ambitious young soldier Horemheb, save the Pharaoh's life while on a hunting expedition in the desert. Sinuhe is appointed Court physician, but becomes obsessed with the Babylonian courtesan Nefer. Sinuhe not only ruins himself in a vain attempt to win her love, but is also disgraced when his neglect of his duties means that he is unable to save the life of Akhnaton's daughter.<br /><br />Sinuhe flees into exile, where he achieves success as a healer in neighbouring countries, but returns to Egypt when he learns of a Hittite plot to invade. Although Akhnaton readily forgives him for his previous offences, Sinuhe finds the country in turmoil. The Pharaoh's attempts to introduce a new religion have led to civil strife between his followers and those of the priests of the old polytheistic faith, and he is too pacific by nature to take any steps to confront the Hittite threat. Sinuhe becomes embroiled in a plot by Horemheb, now the general of the Egyptian army, and Akhnaton's sister Princess Baketamon to overthrow the Pharaoh and replace him with a more effective monarch.<br /><br />The film's weaknesses arise mostly from its two romantic subplots. In the course of the film, Sinuhe is revealed as the long-lost son of the previous Pharaoh and half-brother to Akhnaton and Baketamon. It might therefore surprise a modern audience that she should fall in love with him; marriage between brothers and sisters were not necessarily considered as incestuous by the standards of Egyptian royalty, but the standards of 1950s cinema audiences were generally less liberal on this point. In any case, the Horemheb-Baketamon-Sinuhe love triangle is an unnecessary complication and detracts from Baketamon's role in the film, that of the voice of cold-eyed, cynical Realpolitik.<br /><br />The Nefer subplot, which takes up most of the first hour of the film, is overwritten and excessively melodramatic. Nefer is morally worthless but fascinating, and the role needed an actress of great beauty and also great dramatic skill to make her credible, especially as Nefer achieves the difficult task of winning Sinuhe away from a woman as lovely as Jean Simmons (who plays Merit, Sinuhe's rival for her affections). It is therefore unfortunate that the role went to an actress as comically inept as Bella Darvi, whose only qualification was that she was the mistress of the producer, Darryl F. Zanuck. Darvi was not only a wooden actress, but also spoke with a thick foreign accent, made even more incomprehensible by a lisp. She was not even particularly attractive by comparison with the two legendary Hollywood beauties in the film, Simmons and Gene Tierney who plays Baketamon.<br /><br />The film is better when it concentrates on its main political and religious themes. The other actors are better than Darvi, although Peter Ustinov as Sinuhe's servant Kaptah makes the same mistake as in "Spartacus", that of trying to bring comic relief into a film that does not need it. His voice, anyway, was far too patrician for a "comic servant" role.<br /><br />Edmund Purdom, a little-known British actor, was thrust into the main role when Marlon Brando pulled out at the last minute, but more than adequately fills the great man's shoes, even though his style of acting was quite different. He copes well with the challenge of showing the changes in Sinuhe's character, from unworldly idealist, to lovesick fool, to embittered cynic to the enlightened visionary of the final scenes. Victor Mature was never the most expressive of actors, but he is well-suited to the role of Horemheb, a practical, down-to-earth man of action. He is better here than he was in his other epic from 1954, "Demetrius and the Gladiators". Simmons is luminously beautiful as Merit.<br /><br />Michael Wilding (hitherto best known to me as the second Mr Elizabeth Taylor) plays Akhnaton as a would-be philosopher-king who ends as a sort of holy fool. His inability to make difficult decisions makes him an unsuitable ruler, but he has a prophetic vision of peace and justice which lend him an air of moral greatness far beyond those who hope to replace him on the throne. Although Aten had more in common with the Supreme Being of the Deists than with the Old Testament Jehovah or the Trinitarian Christian God, there is a quite deliberate attempt to draw parallels between Atenism and Christianity. In the film the Atenist symbol is the "ankh", doubtless chosen because of its resemblance to a cross, but in reality it was a common Egyptian hieroglyph for life, not unique to Atenism. Akhnaton's language often has a Biblical ring to it; his comparison of himself to "wind whistling in the desert" recalls John the Baptist's "voice crying in the wilderness" (hence the title of this review). Sinuhe's finding in the river parallels the Old Testament story of Moses.<br /><br />At the end of the film Sinuhe, who has become the inheritor of the spirit of the dead Akhnaton, achieves a moral greatness of his own. The message of the film is that, while we may need practical men of action like Horemheb, we also need visionaries and thinkers who are prepared to ask the question "why?" For all its faults, "The Egyptian" is a film which is idealistic and humane in its approach to both religion and politics. 7/10

When an attempt is made to assassinate the Emir of Ohtar, an Arab potentate visiting Washington, D.C., his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named Sunny Davis. Sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the Protocol Section of the United States Department of State. Unknown to her however, the State Department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda.<br /><br />A map we see shows Ohtar lying on the borders of Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, in an area of barren desert known as the Rub al-Khali, or Empty Quarter. In real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero, and virtually zero strategic value, but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that Ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the Cold War and that the American government, who are keen to build a military base there, need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler. It transpires that the Emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the State Department; they can have their base provided that he can have Sunny as the latest addition to his harem. Sunny's new job is just a ruse to ensure that the Emir has further opportunities to meet her.<br /><br />A plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire, but in fact the film's satirical content is rather toned down. Possibly in 1984 the American public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country's foreign policy; this was, after all, the year in which Ronald Reagan carried forty-nine out of fifty states in the Presidential election and his hard line with the Soviet Union was clearly going down well with the voters. (If the film had been made a couple of years later, in the wake of the Iran/Contra affair, its tone might have been different).<br /><br />The film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for Goldie Hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm. Sunny is a typical Goldie character- pretty, sweet-natured, naive and not too bright. There is, however, a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone, and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde. (Actually, that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one). Goldie tries her best to save this one, but never succeeds. Part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed. On the one hand Sunny is a sweet, innocent country girl from Oregon. On the other hand she is a 35-year-old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume. The effect is rather like imagining Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm grown up and working as a Bunny Girl.<br /><br />The more important reason why Goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his/her material, and "Protocol" is simply unfunny. Whatever humour exists is tired and strained, relying on offensive stereotypes about Arab men who, apparently, all lust after Western women, particularly if they are blonde and blue-eyed. There was a lot of this sort of thing about in the mid-eighties, as this was the period which also saw the awful Ben Kingsley/ Nastassia Kinski film "Harem", about a lascivious Middle Eastern ruler who kidnaps a young American woman, and the mini-series of the same name which told a virtually identical story with a period setting. The film-makers seem to have realised that their film would not work as a pure comedy, because towards the end it turns into a sort of latter-day "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Sunny turns from a blonde bimbo into a fount of political wisdom and starts uttering all sorts of platitudes about Democracy and the Constitution and the Citizen's Duty to Vote and We The People and how the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance blah blah blah……, but in truth the film is no more successful as a political parable than it is as a comedy.<br /><br />Goldie Hawn has made a number of good comedies, such as "Cactus Flower", "Overboard" and ""Housesitter", but "Protocol" is not one of them. I have not seen all of her films, but of those I have seen this dire comedy is by far the worst. 3/10

Shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, The Man With The Screaming Brain is a hilarious love story between two rich ugly-American types and a murderous hotel maid gypsy. <br /><br />William Cole and his wife Jackie arrive in Bulgaria on a business trip and catch a cab driven by hustler Yegor. Things start to go awry when Tatoya, the maid, murders Yegor and William and a mad scientist implants a piece of Yegor's brain in William's head. Robots eventually become involved, as do gypsies with broken fingers, head injuries, Bruce Campbell riding a pink Vespa with prissy little streamers, and All-Of-Me-style physical comedy by a character at war with a voice in his brain who controls half of his body.<br /><br />The Man With The Screaming Brain is an incredibly funny film. It has the most hilarious tracking shot I have ever seen (when Bruce Campbell's character, fresh from the lab and complete with giant forehead scar and blue hospital pajamas, runs into a square and scares a crowd of people) and a falling-down-the-steps murder scene that had the entire test screening audience screaming laughing. The whole thing is a damn riot from beginning to end and I would recommend it to any fan of physical comedy, Bruce Campbell, or B-movies in general.

Malefique pretty much has the viewer from start to finish with its edgy atmosphere. Nearly the whole movie is set in a prison cell revolving around 4 characters of which transvestite Marcus and his little retarded boy are way out the strangest. Soon the inmates find a diary of a previous inmate behind a brick which deals with his obsession of occult and black magic themes leading to his escape from the cell. From here on everything deals with uncovering the secret of the book and its spells to flee from prison. That leads to some accidents on the way out of the cell into the unknown light.<br /><br />Honestly I think the story is rather poor and the final twist is nice but to me the ends are pretty loosely tied together. Anyway I was thrilled until the last moment because the atmosphere of the movie is unique with minimal setting and cast. The kills are raw and eerie... its doesn't take gore to chill your spine and the occult themes are also done very well and reminded me of the hell themes in Hellraiser. Malefique has a claustrophobic and cold dirty feel with greenish tint. At times you wonder if the real or the occult world depicted here is stranger... when the retarded boy looses his fingers and is lulled to sleep sucking on Marcus breasts it seems normal, so how strange can glowing gates to freedom be? With its budget the movie creates a unique atmosphere and chills the viewer in a very different way than most of the genre shockers do. I just wish the story had led to a more consistent finale. Several elements like the visitor with the camera, the other inmates obsession with books and the toy doll vaguely pointing to the end don't fit tight in the story. Anyway, I'll keep my eyes open for other movies from director Valette, although its a turn-off to see he's is doing a Hollywood remake of "One missed call" which was worn off and useless already in the Miike-version.

who's responsible for these "behind the scenes" things? who are these actors? did they crawl out from beneath rocks? 'yuks, lots of yuks!' no. no yuks for me. only loathing and shame that i am a human being. i have to avert my eyes from the set, it's so embarrassing. in fact, i changed the channel.<br /><br />i've always had a problem with robin williams' non-stop 'i forgot my lithium today' rantings, but at least he's funny once in a blue moon. watching someone who isn't funny at all impersonating robin williams is like having each tooth in your head pulled slowly and sadistically, without novocaine, for all eternity.<br /><br />please stop making these absolutely horrifying TV movies. please.

Not finding the right words is everybody's problem in this vaudeville-type urban comedy. They don't know what to say, and they don't know how to say it, which is why they embark on the potentially humiliating enterprise of pre-arranged speed dating. Unfortunately, they all come across as cardboard characters rather than real people. The story follows a conventional three-act structure: getting to know the sizable cast in their sorry single lives, the actual dating circuit, and a final stretch of romantic fallout, showcasing some of the new-found couples' follies. Because it's all so predictable, I'd say that as a narrative, "Shoppen" is a failure. As a comedy, most of the time it's too goofy to be really funny. Thumbs up to Kathrin von Steinburg. She stands out from the soap opera crowd as the aloof, independently wealthy Miriam. Great makeup on her too (Verena Weißert): Heavy eye shadow meets skin-tone lip gloss, creating a brooding and bohemian, yet girlish effect. Thumbs up also to Stefan Zinner as the Bavarian love machine and Tanja Schleiff as the hot nutritionist. They bypass the communication challenge by way of the timeless body language of copulation.

Obviously written for the stage. Lightweight but worthwhile. How can you go wrong with Ralph Richardson, Olivier and Merle Oberon.

One of the worst films of it's genre.<br /><br />The only bright spots were Lee Merriwether showing some of the sparkle she would later bring to the Time Tunnel and Batman.<br /><br />A young Patty Duke also outshone the more established actors.<br /><br />

I thoroughly enjoyed this film for its humor and pathos. I especially like the way the characters welcomed Gina's various suitors. With friends (and family) like these anyone would feel nurtured and loved. I found the writing witty and natural and the actors made the material come alive.

This gem captures early 80's life brilliantly. As a grad '83 boy<br /><br />myself, I must say that Valley Girl (along with Fast Times at<br /><br />Ridgemont High )stands out as the class of the teen sex film<br /><br />genre. The characters are accurate representatives of the era; the<br /><br />vapid mall chicks, pseudo punk rebels, preppy jocks are all<br /><br />represented here.<br /><br />I have seen this over ten times now. The music in the film was top<br /><br />notch. Unfortunately, these tunes could were never as popular in<br /><br />their era as those by arena cockrockers like Journey, Styx or<br /><br />Loverboy. Before the soundtrack existed, I searched out records<br /><br />and tapes (it was the 80's after all !) of Josie Cotton, Sparks,<br /><br />Plimsouls and Modern English.<br /><br />This movie deserves respect. It isn't just a good 80's teen flick. It is<br /><br />a great film. Period.

I readily admit that I watch a lot of really bad movies. But there are very few that I can think of that are quite as bad as When Women Had Tails. It's a stinker of epic proportions. What should have been a sexy comedy about a group of cavemen discovering a woman for the first time is instead a dull, lifeless affair without a single laugh to be had. The comedy is extremely weak. I suppose if you think bashing someone in the head is funny, you might find a laugh or two. The guys in this movie make the Three Stooges look like high art. And there's just not enough of a plot to hold the thing together. It seems to drag on and on and on.<br /><br />Well, you may be asking yourself, "If it's as bad as you say, why haven't you rated it lower than a 3/10?" Good question! And I've got two answers. First, the movie is not without its curiosity value. I do find a bit of interest in an Italian spoof of movies like One Million Years B.C. with Raquel Welch. I'll give When Women Had Tails a point for its historic "value". The other two points are for the mere presence of Senta Berger. I know it's not much of an explanation or reasoning for a rating, but what are you going to do? It's the best I can come up with.

A group of teens that have broken into a huge department store, are attacked by a crazed police man. Exciting and suspenseful throughout and refreshingly devoid of extreme violence and gore, but those Aussie hairstyles and accents are a bit much to take. And they can induce headaches. But this is still a good thriller. 7 out of 10.

Late night on BBC1, was on my way to bed but curiosity piqued at a contemporary-set Irish film so I stayed to watch for a few minutes and then stayed to the end. I have to admit that the main attraction was the only English actress, Kelly Reilly, who is stunning to look at.<br /><br />This is billed as a black comedy, which is one of the hardest things to pull off. It should be the perfect blend of horror and horrible laughs so that in the end you don't know why you're laughing - for me Martin Scorsese's After Hours (1985) is the best example. Dead Bodies is more black than comedy but the plot rattles along and spirals down towards further blackness. I didn't spot the final twists in the tale as some other posters here did so I was suitably surprised.<br /><br />As a snapshot of the Irish film industry in 2003, it all seems rather worthy; it doesn't look like they spent too much on the making of it so it had a chance to make its money back. The script could've been a whole lot sharper but the acting was on the whole pretty good. I'm glad I watched it, flaws and all, tho I don't think I learnt much about Ireland today, especially their policing methods!

This is one dreary, inert, self-important bore. When the only thing that suddenly gives a film life is a hanging, you know the venture is botched. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote as a narcissistic, tic-ridden, self-indulgent, cartoon-voiced, insect-like caricature. Why he is this way is never explained and we get scant background information. The script focuses on Capote's writing of 'In Cold Blood' and his attachment to the damaged brothers who murdered a family of four. The acclaimed writer of 'To Kill A Mockingbird', Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), accompanies Capote in his initial inquires into the crime, and her presence immediately suggests a far more interesting subject for a biopic. Unfortunately, Lee is quickly sidelined in favor of endless scenes of Capote bemoaning his pained existence. Watching him is like watching Dr. Smith from 'Lost in Space' complain about his "delicate back" to anybody who will listen for two hours. The difference, however, is that Smith was fun to watch while Capote is not. The film's precious self-importance kills it, as does director Bennett Miller's reluctance to add any kind of shading. Like the morose piano score, the film is a one note wonder, providing no contrast, no emotional coloring, and no intimate drama. If Capote really was this irritating, why make a film about him and expect audiences to watch it? Though the supporting roles are well performed (Chris Cooper is his usual stalwart self), they serve such little dramatic purpose because, ultimately, it's all about Capote(!) Director Bennett and screenwriter Dan Futterman fail to emotionally engage their intended audience because they were clearly overwhelmed by the cultural baggage of Capote's "legend". Their product is stillborn Oscar bait...and is more evidence that one great genre pic has more "truth" in it than a dozen piles of oh-so-sincere crap like this.

i love this film!! maybe it is my generation but i can really connect with what he is talking about and means to do. it kept me laughing for the duration. duration of the film, the next day, and beyond. i think this film is not one to watch if you mainly care about the plot and character development. this film is pretty much only for the generation that will understand it. there are lots of things you just know being brought up in that generation that you wouldn't if you were say 40. i think Sacha barren Cohen was Very and i do mean Very good. he is a genius. and the reason h is such an idiot is because he can make people believe he is a complete idiot, and make it funny at the same time!!<br /><br />Very good film. strongly recommend!!!! (not so strongly if you are over 30)

I didn't want to write this movie off on the reviews and critics in the western world, I mean how wrong have they been about Asian cinema that has now become a staple diet of the Hollywood remake monster? Plus Jet L is pretty damn cool, and he's made some interesting movies in Asia. So with an open mind I was surprisingly averaged out by this movie.<br /><br />There are good points. The story is very clever, using M-Theory as a base to bring forward the plot that there are multiple universes each with their own versions of worlds, and most likely you. Each time one of you is destroyed the rest share the energy and power amongst them. The idea that someone might try and purposely become the only version of themselves in all the Universes to find out if they become a God.<br /><br />There's also Jet Li, and he's not a bad actor and pretty nimble as a martial artist, plus Jason Statham who is an all round good actor. As for the special effects, some of them are really cool, a mixing of bullet time, and slow motion with normal speed, very cool to watch in places.<br /><br />The bad points? Well Statham's accent is appalling, and some of the effects aren't as comparable as others, so it's quite apparent that money was spent on some of the main shots and not on others that were probably deemed as too short on screen or they just plain ran out of budget.<br /><br />A big sore point for me is the close cropped camera action that Hollywood has long favoured, something that Jackie Chan has often talked about. Filming fight scenes close up serves two purpose. It gives greater emphasis on a single punch or movement, making it look harder and more real than it really is, and it also hides what is going on around the camera lens. For example people holding a fake arm or the face of a stunt double, etc.<br /><br />What Chan always said was that he tried to open out the camera and show the audience what was going on, let them see the people fighting properly rather than a close up of a face and a fist, cutting to someone falling into frame. Showing the whole picture is more effective, and it's more impressive.<br /><br />So the close cropped shots were just more annoying than anything, you failed to see the impressiveness of Li's fighting skills, and you found it hard to see some of the action. Slow the cuts down and pan out the camera Hollywood Directors! The biggest problem was the story though, despite having such a strong base on which to build, they seemed to loose the sense of the plot and concentrate on the action scenes. There are some serious plot building and explanatory moments that are just totally overlooked and covered in the space of a few sentences, yet these could have formed some excellent and complex character development.<br /><br />It just all held together too weakly, and not enough was made of the story. All in all, not a great movie and it's potential was badly spoiled.

Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.

Since there have been so many reviews of this fine film I will write in a list form and attempt to address issues that have not been discussed.<br /><br />1. Dana Andrews was 38 during the filming of this movie. His character according to the screenplay was in his mid 20s. Andrews, a highly underrated actor, did brilliantly play a character who was supposed to be much younger. <br /><br />2. Fredric March like all GREAT actors needs at times to be restrained by the director to avoid over-the-top acting. He was mugging for the cameras when he was drunk on the night after his arrival and also the next morning when he was checking out his hang over in his mirror. <br /><br />3. Dana Andrews was superb as he was in "Laura," "The Ox-Bowl Incident," "A Walk in the Sun," "The Purple Heart" and many other films. Why did Fredric March win the Academy Award and why was Dana Andrews not even nominated for his outstanding performance? <br /><br />4. Harold Russell gave the best performance I have ever seen by a non actor. <br /><br />5. I realize this was the 1940s but Dana Andrews seemed to have no romantic interest in his exceptionally attractive wife (Virginia Mayo).<br /><br />6. Ray Teal, who played the right wing bigot, years later became famous for portraying the sheriff on "Bonanza."<br /><br />7. The professor from the south wrote that the film was slow moving, boring and poorly acted. The professor more than likely is uninformed about classic films. The beauty and significance of these ageless classics is that they are slow moving character studies that avoid profanity, excessive violence and gratuitous sex.<br /><br />***I was surprised that zero out of 3 people found my review useful.

Maria Braun is an extraordinary woman presented fully and very credibly, despite being so obtuse as to border on implausibility. She will do everything to make her marriage work, including shameless opportunism and sexual manipulation. And thus beneath the vicey exterior, she reveals a rather sweet value system. The film suffers from an abrupt and unexpected ending which afterwards feels wholly inadequate, with the convenience familiar from ending your school creative writing exercise with 'and then I woke up'. It is also book-ended at the other end with the most eccentric title sequence I've ever seen, but don't let any of that put you off.

Apparently, this is what happens when a director allows his 14-year old nephew to rewrite the dialogue on the set while he indulges himself alcoholically in the meantime; as I said earlier, although I've always wanted to catch one of Paul Naschy's werewolf pictures, this atrocity served as my introduction and, as awful as it most certainly is, I still intend to pursue other entries in the series, albeit very gradually.<br /><br />Despite some high profile disappointments like Joe Dante's THE HOWLING (1981), I love werewolf pictures in general but, to be honest, I quickly lost interest in this film's "plot" and just stood there gazing at my TV screen counting its absurdities as it were. There were far too many to mention them here but I have to say two which struck me as particularly hilarious were the schizophrenic nature of the Werewolf persona (i.e. going from a raging beast in one shot to a dazed, zombie-like state in the very next one - as if he's on a casual midnight stroll in the countryside, and sporting an entirely different wardrobe to boot...and, yes, I did know the reasons for this beforehand), as well as the "Phantom Of The Opera" look of the Wolfstein character! But what do I know - perhaps the elusive full-length version of this mess could very well have been a bona-fide horror classic!

For once a story of hope highlighted over the tragic reality our youth face. Favela Rising draws one into a scary, unsafe and unfair world and shows through beautiful color and moving music how one man and his dedicated friends choose not to accept that world and change it through action and art. An entertaining, interesting, emotional, aesthetically beautiful film. I showed this film to numerous high school students as well who all live in neighborhoods with poverty and and gun violence and they were enamored with Anderson, the protagonist. I recommend this film to all ages over 13 (due to subtitles and some images of death) from all backgrounds.

to be honest, i didn't watch all of the original 'howling', but those scenes i saw made it obvious that the first howling was a great movie. so great, that seven horrible sequels had to be made. they started off with "Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf". i got this movie on VHS from my uncle sometime ago when he was giving away a bunch of old movies he bought back when Atari was brand new. i just watched it last night, and it wasn't really BAD, it was just weird. i mean, the whole thing with Sybil Danning going three-way with two of her werewolf minions was just out of place and quite disturbing (but kinda hot), Christopher lee about to stab a dead karen as if she's a vampire, etc. actually, this movie was actually like some sort of mish-mash of Dracula and The Lost Boys...except with werewolves, because everything Christopher Lee (whom played Dracula himself) was saying about werewolves pretty much ripped off from every other vampire movie (stake in the heart, garlic, the creature of the night must die AT NIGHT, and the ruler of werewolves lives in TRANSYLVANIA). not much for the acting, but the worst of it came from Annie McEnroe. i swear, at some point in the film i found myself rooting for the werewolves to rip her throat out, because that damn throat always had to say SOMETHING. Anyway, the plot is pretty silly and clichéd, so there's no real point in telling you, you could just read about it on Wikipedia. By the way, the thing that really makes me nauseous about this movie is the fact that it's the ONLY film out of all the seven sequels thats related in any way to the original (not counting Howling IV (1988), which was a remake of the original, or in other words, a sequel based on the same novel). so don't see this movie. there's no real horror, hardly any werewolves, and just horrible special fx. 3/10

This is the question that astronauts Roy Thinnes and Ian Hendry ask themselves when they discover a parallel world of Earth always hidden on the far side of the sun in this 1969 cult science fiction melodrama, released here in America as JOURNEY TO THE FAR SIDE OF THE SUN. The plot of the film was devised by British writers Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, the creators of such TV shows as "UFO", "The Thunderbirds" and "Space 1999". It is exceedingly weird at times, betraying the influence of "The Twilight Zone" and even Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The visual effects work of Derek Meddings, who would also later work on SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, holds up surprisingly well under the last three decades of special effects advancements; and while they are not really on the same exalted level of the Kubrick film, they are very superb. If you don't anticipate a STAR WARS-type of a film and can overcome the occasionally trite dialogue, DOPPELGANGER is a good film; it was good enough for me to rank it a '7' and consider it an undiscovered sci-fi gem.

Rarely have I witnessed such a gratuitous waste of talent. There is almost nothing constructive to be said about this hopeless swamp of a film. What few interesting strands the film seems to promise initially turn out to be little more than red herrings. Actors of stature - Robert Duvall, Robert Downey, Jr. - are deployed in roles which go nowhere; a director of occasional genius produces a film which looks like it is filmed through a coffee-stained camera lens; a writer (John Grisham) who has never produced anything of merit, discovers new depths of under-motivated incoherence. The film has a cheap, lecherous feel about it - but barely at the level of commentary - its really part of the aesthetic. Normally, I come on to the IMDb to write balanced, generally appreciative comments. This egregious disaster of a film just makes me want to produce an endless, bilious rant. I won't, but only because I no longer want to occupy my "mind" with this trash.

This film was sheer boredom from beginning to end. Ok, so i salute Boorman for raising the worldwide recognition of events in Burma, but that is all he achieves. About 10 minutes into the film i thought "oh no, here we go again", and i could have told you exactly what was going to occur in the next 80 minutes or so. Patricia Arquette was out of her depth in such a role, and her acting was wooden and unconvincing. Mind you, being saddled with such an awfully conventional script, maybe boredom set in, and was such reflected on the screen. A lot of the film was just plain laughable. At one stage, Arquette's elderly companion is shot, and he is prostrate on the ground. In the next scene, he is sprinting through the forest, obviously attempting to break the world 100 meters record! - or maybe he's just trying to run away from Boorman!!. If you find it hard to sleep one night then play Beyond Rangoon on your VCR and you'll be snoring in no time. I very rarely critisize a film as heavily as this, but in this case it is completely justified.

A very hyped-up, slick, edgy reinterpretation.<br /><br />They've fallen into the "because it's modern, it has to be hyped-up, slick, etc." trap.<br /><br />"Romeo and Juliet" carried this idea off much more successfully, but I really think it's time we move beyond the two extremes here (period piece vs. edgy film).<br /><br />Just because this is a "modern" retelling, doesn't mean the movie has to look like a magazine ad, or have anything to do with drugs or guns.<br /><br />If the trappings were as subtle as the honeyed words, Macbeth would be a far more powerful film. As it is, read your Shakespeare. Read it out loud. Ask your Oxford dictionary some questions. Skip the film. Or don't, but you've been warned.<br /><br />Sorry for the super-long review. IMDb made me do it.

This movie is very well done although the ending is given away too early in the film. The four elderly men in the restaurant are what makes this film fun to watch. Minnie Driver is a very talented actress and comes across wonderfully on screen.

Partially from the perceived need, one feels, to include a conventional love story in the plot to make the film more marketable to a 1950's movie-going public. <br /><br />The film starts with some wickedly funny characterizations of the upper-class bureaucrats running the Foreign Office --- the British are pilloried in the way that only the British can pillory themselves. But after that, the film loses its way in a conventional farcical plot. Terry-Thomas watchable as always, but the great talent in the cast (Peter Sellers, et al) is largely wasted.<br /><br />A diverting, but not great film.

This is by far THE WORST movie i have ever watched. I've seen some pretty awful movies in my time but this ones takes the cake, no, wait, i mean the the whole damn bakery. It is so bad that i believe a word to describe the way you will feel after watching this atrocity has yet to be created. Please just do yourself a favor, if you ever get the urge to watch this and watch thirty minutes of that annoying purple dinosaur Barney, then multiply that thirty times fold and you would still only get a small fraction of the horror you would be in store for. In summation, i guess you really can call it a horror movie, but only if you're willing to be scared senseless by the worst acting in the business and utterly pointless story.<br /><br />Real Rating, -10 Disgusting

I cant explain what a load of rubbish this film is. Like really i cant. its just that bad.<br /><br />plot=crap acting=crap budget=so low its laughable<br /><br />Jesus, its like the only good thing in this movie is the fact the main character was fairly hot.<br /><br />The only people i feel, that think this movie is good are the ones who took part in the film. I'm sure they are not the ones who funded it because there was no money put into this. (HAHAhaha to the bit where there heads get shaved)<br /><br />This movie has already wasted too much of my life so i am not going to waste anymore time writing my review for it.

Well... easily my favourite TV series ever. Call me a walking mail cliché but include violence, mafia, sex, gambling, drugs etc. on a show and you're already winning points on in my book. Combine all that with acting that superceeds anything you've ever seen on the small screen, add directing that fits cinema of the vintage type and most of all writing that blows the mind (and a few brains a long the way) and you got yourself a show thats gonna be pretty tough to compete with.<br /><br />Above all stand two actors, James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano, and Edie Falco as His wife Carmela... as for Gandolfini, he fits his roll in a way that words cannot express, if you haven't seen him as tony yet see it now!<br /><br />I can go on and on and on about every character in the show, the psychological brilliance, the gripping scenes etc. but you wouldn't be able to stop me so all I can say is that this is about the only show along with Seinfeld, that I am able to watch over and over again from start to finish and end up enjoying it even more.

I'm sure that any legitimate submariner would happily ship out on the USOS Seaview (yes, SOS...) Why, you could play full-court basketball in the torpedo room, it's so large. And how 'bout the bay windows in the bow, the better to see giant squids or minefields that appear out of nowhere? Did I mention the colorful mess-cook with the parrot on his shoulder? And the Admiral's stateroom with what appears to be a loft? Big bleeping sub...<br /><br />OK, OK...it's never gonna win any prizes for authenticity. And if the sub is laughable, the plot is even worse. Somehow the Van Allen belts of radiation, hundreds of miles in space, have "caught fire" are going to make global warming look like a weenie roast. Pompous Admiral Nelson (Walter Pidgeon), along with his sidekick Lucius (Peter Lorre, looking suitably uncomfortable) hatch a scheme to put out the fire by firing a missile into its midst.<br /><br />There's plenty of intrigue (sic) along the way, with a born-again survivor (and his little dog, too!) two "dames" who can never leave well enough alone, a passel of "red shirts" who are expendable, and plot holes big enough for Godzilla to walk through. Thrill to the Seaview being chased at what looks like 60 miles per hour by another sub -- no need for advanced sonar when you can follow from 100 feet astern.<br /><br />The movie careens from one cliff-hanger to another; the payoff is so anticlimactic as to be pointless, certainly not worth the 1 hour and 50 minute wait.<br /><br />The technical adviser for this shipwreck must have been a 14-year old boy with a stack of Popular Mechanics magazines. Worth watching, if only to riff upon.

Harmony Korine. I'm not sure what he was trying to do with this film. If it was to turn my good day feeling into a night of disturbing memories than I guess he succeeded.<br /><br />I know that there were big questions raised in this movie like, who are we really, what are we here for, is there really a God. All great questions, But I really don't think that is funny when you have the questions along side such tragedy. I'm all for real life being portrayed but come on. It's never funny when a wife is being raped, someone killing themselves (and family and friends find the body) and people die for unexplained and unnecessary reasons.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie was the location it was filmed. There is a lot of beautiful places.<br /><br />I'm not a film student or even know all that much on the subject I admit this, but I do know that when I leave the theater with a feeling of disgust, then it was not a film I would recommend to anyone.

there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless. <br /><br />boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.<br /><br />tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.<br /><br />only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.<br /><br />Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.<br /><br />i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.<br /><br />it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.<br /><br />on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.<br /><br />as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.<br /><br />as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.<br /><br />negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -<br /><br />as it is, it's a real hoot.