Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the "glad it was short" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.

So I was sick with the flu one Saturday and the silver lining was that SciFi Channel was having a marathon of dinosaur movies that day - the "Carnosaur" trilogy, "Pterodactyl," "Raptor Island." Then I flicked ahead on my cable remote to see which movie SciFi placed in its glamorous, Saturday prime-time slot. Some movie I had never heard of before called "Raptor." I was pretty excited. The movie begins with some teens driving around in a jeep, when they get stalked and killed by a Velociraptor. I was like, "Hmmm, that's odd, that looks almost exactly like a scene in "Carnosaur," except it was in the middle of that movie." Then I sat through some really bad acting and then some guy was suckered into walking into an underground research laboratory where he got eaten by a ferocious T-Rex. Now I'm like, "Wait a second, that was also a scene in "Carnosaur." Then, after I saw some scenes blatantly ripped off from "Carnosaur 2", I figured out just what the hell was going on. So basically, Roger Corman & Co. ripped off scenes from the "Carnosaur" trilogy to use as the action scenes, weaved in a basic "dinosaur-runs-amok" plot, and tried to pass it off as an original movie. Shameful. I don't know who I'm more angry at, Roger Corman or SciFi Channel for trying to pass this off as worthy of the prime-time slot. The only reason why this was worth watching to its conclusion was to pick out the actors/actresses who looked like their counterparts in the "Carnosaur" trilogy and guess which scenes would be lifted next. As much as it pains me, being a dinosaur lover, I have no choice but to give this the lowest possible rating because I feel completely ripped off.

Black and White film. Good photography. Believable characters. <br /><br />Just awful.<br /><br />I have wasted another perfect evening watching a film that other rated as "worthy" and "very good." There is some good acting here and the back ground setting for the plot is good (more should have been done with this) but it is very slow to grow and never develops. It is totally bases on sex without much romance with much un needed nudity. More could have been done with the main characters. If you are looking for something to watch with you family this in not the movie and if not you will have trouble sitting through it. Though this film is long its only about 1 inch deep!

That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it. He wasn't able to keep from dozing off. I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for "boring". <br /><br />Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work. Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody. Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable. It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage. I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is. Don't believe me? Gather 'round. <br /><br />Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner. But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles? You'll find that here. GET IT? THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate. Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke? It's not even close to "cleverly offensive". It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face. <br /><br />In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the "Landmines" takes the stage at an officers' ball. Okay- are you ready? The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY. Why did I write that in caps also? Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags. They start off mediocre enough; glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering... then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF. You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on. In the very next- the shoes are off!!! Get it, because the music was so bad, her shoes came off! What the F???? <br /><br />Then there is an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the SINGING IS BAD. If any human being actually suffered through this scene in the theater without running like hell, I would be astonished. This movie is honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the doors. Robert Downey Sr. directs comedy the way his son commands respect by staying drug-free. Badly. Other things to watch out for:<br /><br />1. The popular music shoehorned in wherever possible. Every time Liceman appears, a really inappropriate Iggy Pop song plays. Plus all the actors do their best to act like it got really chilly for some reason.<br /><br />2. Barbara Bach's criminally awful accent. She sounds like she's trying to talk like a baby while rolling a marble around on her tongue. There is no nudity, and there are several scenes where the boys all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage, like they're in a community school acting class and they've been directed to act like aroused retarded people. <br /><br />3. Liceman feeds his revolting dog a condom. Remember; when this movie came out throwing in "abortion" and "condom" was seen as "edgy". <br /><br />4. Tom Poston plays a mincing, boy-hungry pedophile, back when Hollywood thought "pedophile" and "homosexual" were one in the same. Flat-out embarrassing. <br /><br />5. Watch the ending. Nothing is wrong with your VCR. That is actually the ending. Tell me that doesn't make you want to explode everyone who's ever made any movie, ever. <br /><br />Watch this at your own risk. Up The Academy has been known to actually make other movies, like The Jerk or Blazing Saddles, less funny simply by placing the videotape near them.

A must for any die hard Carpenters fans!<br /><br />Cynthia Gibb does the role of KC a huuuuuge amount of justice, and although the 'story' isn't 100% factual, is still a good insight into the lives of both Richard and Karen and worth a watch just for the soundtrack.<br /><br />Makes me cry everytime!!!<br /><br />

First, I am not really a fan of the whole "things eating flesh in disgusting new ways" genre of film but I am a bad movie afficionado so my next door neighbor said he had the worst movie ever. This one. So we start watching it. First and foremost - it is recorded on a camcorder sans tripod! Second the voice of the skinny white doctor is dubbed by a large black man! Third, none of the dialogue makes any sense. Fourth, the zombie scenes, though unconvincing and chockful of poor makeup and tomato paste, lead me to believe the director (and my next door neighbor) are in need of psychological help. It's funny for about 5 minutes but it gets old fast. It's so amateurish it's like watching a poorly dubbed high school video yearbook.... with zombies. A note to anyone involved with this movie - I want the 20 minutes of my life I spent watching this, before I fell asleep, back.

Imaginative, quick-paced, satirical! Americans do 'zany', but the Brits do 'witty' -- and they love to poke fun at themselves (ahem: unattractive teeth, large lips/nose, 'veddy' common or 'veddy' snobby, obsession with the 'gahden'). Inside jokes for the older folk in the audience, lots of action for the kiddies. Subtle use of devices from other classic films (watch for 'Back to the Future', 'Indiana Jones..', 'Harvey', 'Tremors'.. and more). Also, a nifty 'buddy' film (Gromit is a quiet, but resourceful sidekick). Add brilliant voice work by Bonham-Carter and Fiennes (is it true? the best acting these days is being done in animation?) - enjoy! I saw it with the grandkids. fun time for all. - canuckteach

As I looked at this movie once again, I think it belongs among Hitchcock's greatest films. The first time I saw it I was just blown away by the suspense, action and imagery. It has the gripping ending, the deranged murderer, the innocent man framed or victimized by circumstances, some great on-location shots, e.g. the Jefferson Memorial in Washington and Penn Central in New York. It also has great supporting actors with Hitch's daughter Patricia in the role of the younger sister to Ruth Roman and the stalwart Leo G. Carroll in another of his Hitchcock movies. The merry-go-round episode near the end is one of the most nerve-wracking in Hitchcock's body of work.<br /><br />Robert Walker as Bruno Anthony (his last full film) gives a great performance as the deranged stranger on the train, who worms himself into the life of the unsuspecting tennis star, Guy Haines (Farley Granger). Granger plays the nice guy who is caught up in a messy divorce. The movie opens with the camera showing the shoes of two separate men as they leave their taxis to board the train. Eventually, they meet and the story takes over. The stranger takes an unusual interest in the tennis star and as the movie continues,the stranger becomes a stalker. The action shifts from place to place, including Washington, the fictional small town of Metcalf, the Forest Hills tennis championship, and a passenger train taking the two leading men back and forth on separate missions. Towards the end, the pace of a tennis game is woven into the plot as they race against time. The camera cuts away to the faces of the athletes as they volley and serve in a remarkable series of shots. When the closely-fought contest is over, the climactic chase takes place. Hitchcock has a love for trains and it is great to see Penn Station, long since gone. Trains are featured in the 39 Steps, the Lady Vanishes, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, North by Northwest and this movie. <br /><br />This classic Hitchcock thriller took place at the start of a period of great creativity for the master of suspense - the 1950's and I am convinced that one day it will be given its due in the Hitchcock hall of fame.

Great voices, lots of adventure and clever dialogue make this a very good movie. The addition of "character" to the three lead animals gives the story a lot more depth and meaning, particularly the relationship between the older fellow, Shadow, and the young hellraiser, Chance. The earlier versions of this film were unable to give the animals any real personality or motive, which is done perfectly here. Sally Field is lovable in anything, but really shines in this film as the proud feline, Sassy. Great contrast between cat and dog perspectives on life, and just the right amount of spirit and warm fuzzies to make the plot and resolution excellent. There's even an uplifting score and beautiful mountain scenery. Definitely perfect for an evening alone or with the kids. Hats off to Disney.

I viewed this movie at the Magnolia Theater in Dallas a couple of days ago. Punk! Everyone and everything involved in the movie added to the punkiness of it. The music, well of course. But the movie itself captured the whole punk genre. Even a grandmother and school teacher (me) can appreciate artists who are able to turn their ideas into reality (well, reality, film-wise). This movie takes a handful of ticked-off young film makers and clearly and cleverly shows the "why" of their angst over not being given the green light on finishing the Waldo film. The (relatively) happy girl gave good comic relief, a nice respite from the continual (but understandable) ragging on the dude who left them in a lurch. Gotta love Stu, though. And be sure to watch/read the credits - they're the icing on the cake!

This movie is once again, one of those movies that someone thinks or tries to make others think that they understood it. Anyone who tries to make any sense of this is a MORON! My advise would be to take TWO not one but TWO hits of very strong acid and at least you'll get a visual thrill out of it!! Although at the end you may kill yourself for wasting your acid!!!! Being that this comment requires 10 lines of info, let me write something for those of you that will try to defend the movie. Unintelligble. Garbage. Schitzoid. Waste of talent. Movie is ice, with paper on destination with ringing clouds, on a sunny dive in the pudding.... Sounds like lion in a red light with seeing hair. Now explain that to me!!!!

I haven't yet read the Kurt Vonnegut book this was adapted from, but I am familiar with some of his other work and was interested to see how it would be translated to the screen. Overall, I think this is a very successful adaptation of one of Vonnegut's novels. It concerns the story of an American living in Germany who is recruited as a spy for the US. His job is to ingratiate himself with high ranked Nazi's and send secret messages to the American's via his weekly radio show. But when the war ends he is denounced as a war criminal but escapes to New York, where various odd plot twists await.<br /><br />If Mother Night has a problem it's that it tends to get a little too sentimental at times. But for most of the film the schmaltz is kept to a minimum and the very strange plot is carried through with skill and aplomb. And there are some fabulous moments of black comedy involving three right wing Christian fundamentalists and a very highly ranked Nazi in a prison cell. Very much recommended.

I really tried to like "Saw." The story was good, and I admire the breakneck pace of the way the film was shot. However, there were too many clichés and elements that while they may have looked "cool," they really made no sense.<br /><br />First, what I liked about the film was the overall tone of the story, and I thought the premise was fantastic. The character of The Jigsaw Killer was intriguing and reminded me of vintage Dario Argento. Danny Glover was excellent in his role as an obsessed detective, and Monica Potter was good in a thankless role as a doctor's abducted wife. Shawnee Smith's scene was incredible and both Wan and Whannell should be commended for using that scene as a demo to get the backing for the film. The whole notion that the Jigsaw killer finds a way for his victims to kill themselves is an excellent notion, but once the film got going, logic began to get away.<br /><br />Once they showed that Zap was the one holding Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter hostage, it was apparent that he was not the Jigsaw killer, and part of it. The scene where he puts a stethoscope over the heart of the terrified Diana while Allison screams at him through her gag was one of the most gratuitous scenes I've ever seen. It was supposed to be chilling, but establishing nothing. Also, since the Jigsaw killer finds a way for victims to kill themselves, he has no problem slicing the throat of a police officer. I guess it's a way to show that he doesn't want to get caught and will go to any means necessary to ensure that doesn't happen, but to me it just didn't make any logic, especially when he shows no remorse over the death of another detective (which I did like that setup, just would've been better if given to someone who actually deserved it).<br /><br />I felt Leigh Whannell was fine as Adam. It wasn't really a showy role and he has a lot of potential as a character actor. However, I wasn't too fond of James Wan's direction. The story may have been original, but the direction sure wasn't. I guess I'm tired of quick, MTV style cuts in favor of the old approach to directing, but a lot of scenes involving the Jigsaw killer reminded me too much of "Se7en," way too much of it. As the film progressed, to me it was starting to become a series of demo reels like "Hey, look what I can do." Instead of being intriguing, it became very distracting. But hey, it worked. He's now directing "Final Destination 3" so he's on a path to a successful career, and I think he will become a top notch horror director in years to come.<br /><br />What really did it in for me was the ending. Like I said, I knew that Jigsaw wasn't Zap, and I liked how Adam discovered the mini tape player after killing him. It would've had a terrific ending, except for one fatal flaw: I felt they should've left it where you didn't know who the killer was. The way it was done was only done for one reason: Boy, are we clever? Uh, no. To me, it just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Some of the better horror films are made for a reason, where there is a reason for the violence we see in the story. While "Saw" started out very well, it started to become undone by the filmmakers' insatiable need to be "cool" and detract from the winning story they had. Perhaps if they weren't too insistent on making the films themselves, and relied on a more experienced horror director to helm it, I think it would've been the horror classic that it undeservedly has been given over the past four months. If this and "Cabin Fever" are the future of horror, I'm very scared.

... with a 500$ budget and a bottle of ketchup.<br /><br />If you are a fan of C movies with no talented actors whatsoever, a ridiculous story, cheap effects and lousy camera-work, this film delivers.<br /><br />All others be warned. You could probably make a similar movie with a couple of friends in your backyard and a home camcorder.<br /><br />The film is good for some laughs though. Watch it with some friends and discuss how NOT to make a movie.<br /><br />2/10 for unintentional comedy.<br /><br />Why the hell do you have to write 10 lines? I have seen comments with less lines and writing this is just a lame filler.

THE GREAT CARUSO was the biggest hit in the world in 1951 and broke all box office records at Radio City Music Hall in a year when most "movergoers" were stay-at-homes watching their new 7" Motorola televisions. Almost all recent box office figures are false --- because they fail to adjust inflation. Obviously today's $10 movies will dominate. In 1951 it cost 90c to $1.60 at Radio City; 44c to 75c first run at Loew's Palace in Washington DC, or 35c to 50c in neighborhood runs. What counts is the number of people responding to the picture, not unadjusted box office "media spin." The genius of THE GREAT CARUSO was that the filmmakers took most of the actual life of Enrico Caruso (really not a great story anyway) and threw it in the trash. Instead, 90% of the movie's focus was on the music. Thus MGM gave us the best living opera singer MARIO LANZA doing the music of the best-ever historic opera singer ENRICO CARUSO. The result was a wonderful movie. Too bad LANZA would throw his life and career away on overeating. Too fat to play THE STUDENT PRINCE, Edmund Purdom took his place --- with Lanza's voice dubbed in, and with the formerly handsome and not-fat Lanza pictured in the advertising. If you want to see THE GREAT CARUSO, it's almost always on eBay for $2.00 or less. Don't be put off by the low price, as it reflects only the easy availability of copies, not the quality of the movie.

Stephen Seagal plays the role of a dude who gets talked into driving an armored car for a bank hold up and drives into everything that comes across his path. However, the police seem to appear on the scene very quickly and Seagal smells a rat who gave the police advanced notice. The story gets into many twists and turns and the money from the hold up has disappeared and nobody knows its new owner. Poor Seagal gets a bit framed into this hold up and naturally he is out looking for the person or persons who are trying to put him away for a long time. In this film, Seagal tries to be a good guy but the forces of evil are against him. Unfortunately, this is not a great film and rather boring and too long.

This movie is excellent in how it portrays the reality of sexual abuse. The daughters perfectly express their conflicting emotions of affection and betrayal. The on-location scenery is absorbingly authentic, and the soundtrack is unobtrusive yet moving. This film is a graduate-level course in a reality that's too little recognized in American society. Personally, I'm freaked out by the names of the characters -- Lange's character is Ginny Cook Smith -- my name is Connie Cook Smith, and my mom is Genny Cook. The youngest daughter is Caroline Cook, which is my sister's name, and the father is Larry Cook, my cousin's name.But sex abuse was not in our immediate family.

Extremely funny. More gags in each one of these episodes than in ten years of Friends. And with a good (ie. funny) Nordberg, not the fab-only-casted OJ Simpson in the movies. When will these episodes emerge on DVD?...

In 1454, in France, the sorcerer Alaric de Marnac (Paul Naschy) is decapitated and his mistress Mabille De Lancré (Helga Liné) is tortured to death accused of witchcraft, vampirism and lycanthropy. Before they die, they curse the next generations of their executioners. In the present days (in the 70's), Hugo de Marnac (Paul Naschy) and Sylvia (Betsabé Ruiz) and their friends Maurice Roland (Vic Winner) and his beloved Paula (Cristina Suriani) go to a séance session, where they evoke the spirit of Alaric de Marnac. They decide to travel to the Villas de Sade, a real estate of Hugo's family in the countryside, to seek a monastery with a hidden treasure. They find Alaric's head and the fiend possesses them, bringing Mabille back to life and executing the locals in gore sacrifices. After the death of her father, Elvira (Emma Cohen) recalls that he has the Thor's Hammer amulet hidden in a well; together with Maurice, they try to defeat the demoniac Alaric de Marnac and Mabille.<br /><br />Last weekend I bought a box of horror genre with five DVDs of Paul Naschy per US$ 9.98; despite of having no references, I decided to take the chance. The first DVD with the uncut and restored version "Horror Rises from the Tomb" is a trash B (or C) movie that immediately made me recall Ed Wood. The ridiculous story is disclosed through awful screenplay, direction, performances, cinematography, decoration, special effects and edition and with lots of naked women. The result is simply hilarious and I can guarantee that Ed Wood's style is back. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available

9/11 is a classic example of cinema verite, a sort of realist documentary, in this case of New York firemen as they battle against one of the most extraordinary events of world history. It's all tiny, unobtrusive, hand-held video cameras, often betrayed by the poor quality of most of the filming (and by the director, Naudet's hand frequently wiping the screen).<br /><br />In this film, you get to know most of the firemen - Tony Benatatos, the rookie (or 'probie', in NY fireman vernacular), the Fire Chief Joseph Pfeiffer (who finds he's lost his brother later on) and a few others. There are studio interviews with most of these people throughout the film, just to emphasise the personal, reflexive nature of the events. The build-up is quite dramatic and well-done, particularly the passing-out ceremony at the Fire Department, with a few useful swish-pans and a sort of dialectical editing of the rather limited filmwork (just like Rob Reiner's A Few Good Men). Tony looks proud.<br /><br />The viewpoint and camera angle is usually from amidst the firemen, which is interesting and there is some excellent footage from inside the lobby of WTC1 while Pfeiffer and his team plan what to do next - this is classic cinema verite. There is also the eery, haunting sound of the occasional human body crashing against the portico outside. It is then that an increasingly forlorn Fire Chief Pfeiffer realises that his task is desperate and probably hopeless - and this is before WTC2 collapses. You have to give credit to Naudet for knowing which faces to film and at which moment.<br /><br />The sound of the neighbouring WTC2 collapsing is so awfully sad, poignant and terrifying that you realise what an ordeal this is for the firemen. From the lobby, it looks, feels and sounds like the end of the world and the poor firemen look so utterly bewildered and frightened. You hear an enormous rumbling, trembling maelstrom - like that of a giant, monolithic beast slowly falling to the ground after being so mortally wounded - the neighbouring tower has collapsed yet the fire team remaining in WTC1 are oblivious to this event. Where is the communication?<br /><br />This film is captivating yet the narration is amateurish and should have been avoided - cues like 'this really was a day like no other' or Naudet's frequently banal pronouncements like 'you could see fear in everybody's eyes' and 'I knew Tony was freaking out'! The film is really just one long video diary. There are no pictures from higher up the building where some of the firemen have gone. Imagine this film blended with CCTV footage from some of the rooms higher up or some of the news coverage from the day. The effect would be greater. You could even combine this story with that of Mayor Giuliani and, perhaps, the famous Cornishman Rick Riscorla who literally was many floors up acting the hero.<br /><br />I don't see much of a propaganda element in this film, as some reviewers suggest. This film is no Triumph of the Will, by Riefenstahl. Some time later the firemen drape the American flag over a nearby, surviving building overlooking what has become Ground Zero. So what?<br /><br />There are also some moments of dubious camerawork; for example, who is holding the camera when the two Naudet brothers are reunited back at the fire station? Is it staged?<br /><br />There is an excellent finish, very much in the traditon of the excellent French director Alain Resnais (Hiroshima mon amour), with two strips of light reflected in the water, shimmying.

STMD! is one of the most fun and enjoyable low-budget films I've seen in quite some time. Director Jeff Smith (who also served as co-writer, cinematographer and editor) definitely shows his love of under-appreciated 80's horror films with this movie! Anyone who loves the cheesiness, preposterous situations, wacky and stereotypical characters of 80's horror movies will definitely love this very tongue-in-cheek homage to the past.<br /><br />STMD! definitely lives up to the qualities described in the poster and then some. It has all the "excessive violence" and "gratuitous nudity" that is reminiscent of those entertaining 80's horror movies we all love. I had a blast watching STMD! From the 80's outfits that the stereotypical characters wear to the blood splatter to the goofy tone I just couldn't get enough!

I remember this game. It was always sitting on the shelves alone, until one day I decided to try something new for a change, and got this game. I stared in awe at it, since it was the first ever game for the PS1 that I owned that had 4 discs. When I played it, I couldn't put the controller down, seriously.<br /><br />The storyline of this game is so good and twisted, it's almost as good as the Final Fantasy VII Storyline, and that is hard to accomplish. When you play the game, you get so involved with the characters it's unbelievable that it's only a PS1 game, as It feels like a movie. And I believe it should be made into a movie.<br /><br />Too bad this game is a very unheard of game and barely no one has played or liked it, as it is one of those games that is sitting on the ends of the shelves, with a 50% off sign sitting on it, trying to sell. Well I am one of those people who always look at those on the ends, and try them out and most of them turn out to be really good. Heck, that is how I got into final Fantasy VII, looking in a catalog, and finding it. But this is different than Final Fantasy.<br /><br />Legend of Dragoon, is the only game or RPG that is better than most Square Enix games, surprisingly. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made by Square Enix but it's not. Hardly any games I play are better than the Final Fantasy series, or the Dragon Quest series, but this one is. But what really bugs me is why it is very little known and is not praised, which it should be.<br /><br />Graphics are pretty good for a PS1 game, but what can you expect from it? It's PS1 man, made in 1999. Story I have already mentioned is amazing, almost beats VII. Characters are a amazing, you get involved so much with them, and their actions.<br /><br />A definite 10 out of 10. Definitely deserved more praise, and a very well done RPG by a company other than Square Enix.

Hail Bollywood and men Directors !<br /><br />Really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by Indian Woman !!<br /><br />Viewing the current state of affairs in India where The wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands - the Directors ..also can be called Uncle Scars (refer movie The Lion King) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves ...including the spermikins !!<br /><br />Story line : Married couple - very happy - but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage - lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother !<br /><br />Now in in India, the in- laws usually drive away the daughter- in- law if she fails to give them an heir ! So the wife hits upon a major plan - surrogate mother...but the scientists intervened - "Sure artificial insemination" - NO said the artist (Director actually) - "Neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter - in - law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother !!<br /><br />Neighbours ! society !! gosh the same ones who watch Fashion TV day and night - watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 ...al in bras and panties - well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making !!<br /><br />SO the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage - all mostly uneducated and illiterate - but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot !<br /><br />He hires the lead dancer in the pub - asks her to bear his baby - in exchange for money - she agrees - she comes home - becomes pregnant - wife and kept - both co-exist in the same house - in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life - so much caring people around - she misses them all and cries silently !! In the mean time - no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat !!- the mother or other elderly people never took her for check-ups - nor did they try to feel the baby's movements in the womb !!

I won't go into detail about why this movie deserves an awful rating, plenty of other people have already done that. Suffice it to say that out of the over 400 movies that I've owned on DVD, this is the ONLY one that I got rid of- it was so worthless that I couldn't see ever wanting to watch ANY of it again.<br /><br />However, I do have a comment on the ridiculously high average rating of 2.9 (as of 3-15-06). While skimming through the 4 pages of reviews I saw no rating higher than 3 stars. Looking at the voting history, 78% of users rated the movie as 4 stars or less. It looks to me like a few people are stuffing the ballot box to keep this movie off of the IMDb "bottom 100" list. It would be interesting to see how many of the 30 users who rated this movie as 10 stars (none of who wrote a review of the movie) are actual active users.<br /><br />Don't be fooled, this movie isn't worth your time.

Cut to the chase, this is one of the five worst films that I've ever seen.<br /><br />Not that they didn't try. There was some decent writing with some elements of structure in there, a good cast, some good acting. I'm not sure where it went wrong, but it went horribly wrong.<br /><br />Some of the elements may have been bad structure and no substantive story, a lot of overacting by the lead (who probably is much better when restrained), some bad directing and editing. I had enough at about an hour, tearing my hair out at about a hour and a half and very agitated at the hour and fifty minutes it ran. There was also an insincerity about it all, being that I went with someone who used to be a heroin addict. He was agitated that it glamorized something that had nothing good to it. That was bolstered by the pretty 17 year-old girl who was in love with the 30 year-old junkie.<br /><br />And the frantic nature of the lead was a turn-off enough. There were clunky plot points that were an attempt at a structure, but the end result was listless and unending (with uneven time lines). The characters were colorful but to no end, which made me feel bad for the quality actors who you've just not seen enough.<br /><br />Skip it. I assumed that this was a first-time director who was enamored by his own turds, but he has done this before. I'm puzzled how this and many other really bad ideas find someone who will actually give them money.

The movie starts with a Spiderman spoof which is your introduction to Rick Riker (played by Drake Bell of "Drake & Josh" fame, personally I'd have given the movie to Josh who is much funnier) and the "Rick Punchers" joke is lifted right out of Airplane so the writers were obviously already scraping the barrel for ideas for this film. Rick's class is on a science trip to The Amalgamated Genetics lab and this is where we get to meet the 1st star name in the film, Brent Spiner (Data in Star Trek TNG) playing Dr Strom. Rick is bitten by a genetically modified dragonfly which is where his powers come from.<br /><br />We meet our next big star names at Rick's home, his Aunt Lucille (Marion Ross of Happy Days fame) & Uncle Albert (Leslie Nielson of Airplane, Police Squad & Naked Gun fame). And we're introduced to Carlson on the Amalgamated Board of Directors (Dan Castellaneta from The Simpsons) who is then very promptly killed. We're told Rick has slept for 5 days & get some cheap, crappy sexually orientated scenes designed to get the teen male audience paying attention. The Stephen Hawking lookalike's scene is painful to watch and is really a bad idea that doesn't work and isn't remotely funny.<br /><br />We get another Spiderman spoof (Rick catching the girl and all the planets) but the movie should end right there as Jill was hit in the head by a falling bowling ball which would have broken her skull and killed her stone dead. You get to see Rick's 1st powers emerge (gripping ability & speed) then his 1st rescue which goes very wrong. We also get an incest reference which is in very poor taste indeed. We get a flashback and a Batman spoof in which we discover Rick is solely responsible for the death of his parents. Spoofing Spiderman again Ricks Uncle is shot with Jeffrey Tambor (from Hellboy) playing the Hospital Doctor. We then get an X-men spoof (done very badly as Patrick Stewart is about as white as they come), Barry Bonds is played by yet another lookalike.<br /><br />We meet Invisible Girl (played by Pamela Anderson looking stunning in her costume!). Ricks 1st outing in his costume (once he fixes his ability to see & breath through it) is another Batman spoof. The Tom Cruise Youtube interview clip is played by yet another lookalike (and not a very good one at that). There are lots of modern references like Youtube, Facebook & Wikipedia all showing that the movie is set in modern day. There's a very weak gay joke (never a good idea to do those either) when Jill is helping Aunt Lucille make Thanksgiving dinner and the pissing scene isn't very funny, just infantile.<br /><br />The Aunt farting scene isn't particularly funny, just incredibly childish. Anyone finding it funny must have a mental age of about 12. She's killed and then we have a really bad necrophilia joke (is there no topic these people won't try to use to get a cheap laugh out of?) at her funeral, and the even worse cremation joke.<br /><br />We get the 2 worst lookalikes in the whole movie (Prince Charles & Nelson Mandela) at the awards ceremony and if you didn't already know how infantile or stupidly lowbrow this movie is Landers wins the "Douchebag Of The Year" award. Landers is revealed as The Hourglass (in a really bad scene where the same girl manages to run past Jill twice in the same direction).<br /><br />Obviously The Hourglass is foiled, Jill is rescued from certain death and the only funny scene in the whole movie is the final one.

I blind bought this movie and am pretty upset that I paid as much as I did but I would say that it's at least worth a rent for some cool deaths and laughable acting. It is not a good movie in any way but I must say that I was pretty darn entertained. I guess it could be called so-bad-it's-good.<br /><br />As I said, the acting is awful, I feel like I could have done a better job showing, at least, any emotion. The story is nothing new and has been done better. I guess I just have a soft spot for any carnival-esquire type film. I would say rent this or download it but definitely don't buy it. It is not worth more than one watch.

Ask a thousand people what the greatest unintentional comedy of all time is, and they will almost invariably tell you Battlefield Earth or Plan 9 From Outer Space. They're wrong. American Ninja has those two turkeys beat down for a number of reasons, not the least of which being a script that was quite clearly not thought through. While I fully support the B picture industry for keeping slobs like Michael Dudikoff in work, a little work on the product would have gone a long way.<br /><br />For those who give a rat's posterior, my next few paragraphs will give away significant parts of the plot.<br /><br />First of all, when we are given some background information on the titular hero, we are told his date of birth, next of kin, parents, and so forth, are all unknown. I don't know about you, but I expect the US army to take fact-finding about its personnel a little more seriously. They also manage to screw up the continuity of dates quite effectively, although I don't remember quite which dates were screwed up and when. This is actually one of American Ninja's less obvious flaws.<br /><br />It has been pointed out before, but a common failing of many martial arts films is that when our heroes are confronted by large numbers of antagonists, said antagonists attack one at a time. More recent films such as The Matrix Reloaded defy this convention, but just about every film from the 1980s has the audience screaming, "hey, why don't you attack all at once???". Martial arts films tend to be a lot more impressive when the fights are more extensive than one-on-one.<br /><br />The central premise was originally a joke, but in light of recent events where the US army cannot crush a mob of insurgents simply because they won't delegate to the specialists, it seems strangely ironic. Phillipino renegades are stealing weapons from the US army's local division for sale to wealthy clients. Never mind that such a theft would prompt the army to give the local businessmen responsible, or even believed responsible, an aerial rectal exam, this is a cheesy 1980s action film, after all.<br /><br />By far the funniest part of the film is the climactic battle, however. As Joe and Jackson turn combining posing and fighting into an art form, evil Ninjas start to explode for no readily apparent reason. I agree with one previous commentator in that this film should have been called Ninja Holocaust, because I'm willing to bet a total of at least three hundred evil Ninjas bite it during the film's running time. On top of that, the Black Star Ninja starts fighting with rocket launchers, laser beams, and all sorts of ridiculous implements that are not only poorly thought out, they're flat-out poorly executed. You'll never see a laser beam effect that looks cheaper.<br /><br />What tops it all off is that the film takes itself so damned seriously. During the scene when Joe is meeting up again with his old mentor, I dare the viewer not to laugh at the hideous dialogue. Not that I know any modern practioners of Ninjitsu, but the logical part of my imagination has a hard time believing that they have spoken like this at any time in their history. During this mentoring scene, I half expect the old guy to tell Joe he must prove his manhood by cutting his own head off with a blunt plastic spoon.<br /><br />In all, I gave American Ninja a 1. This is a special score in my system in that it is reserved for the worst, most appalling, most offensive films I've ever seen, or films that make me laugh without even bothering to try. American Ninja is definitely an example of the latter.

This movie actually hurts to watch. Not only did I not laugh once, I ended up getting a serious headache. At times, I felt so sorry for the actors involved. The best way to sum it up is to note that among sex comedies, it is probably the least funny and least sexy of all time. I'm only sorry I can't give it a vote of less than one. To give this a rating of one is an insult to every movie that scores two or better.<br /><br />Now I see that they're filming a sequel. Hearing that someone is actually paying these people to make another movie convinces me that there's just too much money in Hollywood. RAISE THEIR TAXES!!! Making a sequel to this movie may very well constitute a crime against humanity; perhaps an international tribunal should be convened, or U.N. sanctions applied to the filmmakers.<br /><br />In short, it's a really bad movie. Really, really.

Duck_of_Death needs to watch this film again, as his major criticism is completely baseless. The film never once forgot about the time delay, and it was mentioned explicitly in a couple of places. The crew were never shown having conversations with mission control that didn't obey the time delay rules.<br /><br />One thing I did think was a bit far-fetched was the amount of risk involved - would a crew land on a planet on which pressure suits would only last two hours? I doubt it. Would a manned space ship go into a star's corona? I doubt it. Would humans land on a moon that was being bombarded with huge amounts of radiation? I doubt it. Also, the ship seemed overly sturdy. Would a ship designed like that risk atmospheric flight to slow it down? I doubt it. Would it survive being hit by comet debris? I doubt it. I think in both cases the stresses on the structure would be too much. But all-in-all, the unlikely scenarios were compensated by some nicely done special effects, good editing and production, and some good acting, especially by the actors portraying the ship's commander and the Russian cosmonaut.

I must tell you the truth. The only reason I wanted to see this movie was because of Rose McGowan. I think that part definitely worked out...pretty well actually. However, the film was very good too. Some parts of this movie are really good.<br /><br />The film has great action also. The mystery is pretty hard to figure out and Rose [McGowan] does some "Oscar-worthy" acting towards the end of the film, but I don't want to give anything away. Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow are also great in the movie, along with some of the other stars.<br /><br />If you like mysteries, or action movies, or just like Rose...I totally think you would like this movie.

The mere fact that I still think of the movie a decade later is what really speaks volumes about the film. To me this substantiates Grand Canyon as a film that will touch you in one way or another. I truly believe that before the movie Crash there was Grand Canyon. The major difference between the two films in my opinion is the timing of their release. I'm not going to argue which one is better, but I will contend to the idea that they share the same message. I'd love to hear from those that have an opinion on this subject. I will start a commentary which you can find at http://www.myspace.com/62229249. You may also find me there to post any other topics about movies that we may share, because i have a true love for film.

"You're not going to shoot those little creatures. In the first place, they haven't done you any harm. In the second place, they may be radioactive." Ah, the joys of no-budget 50s sci-fi… Yet despite the odd gem like that, Superman and the Mole-Men is pretty uninspiring going even with a lean 58-minute running time. It's beyond cheap (the one shot of Superman flying is an incredibly inept few frames of animation) and pretty dull with it, though it has a surprisingly altruistic message – the mute Mole-Men, diminutive actors with enlarged skulls and fur coats who look more like Mr Mxyzptlk without the hat than subterranean critters, released from their underground world by oil drilling are not malicious, merely misunderstood, and George Reeves' Man of Steel tries to prevent the local small-town mob led by Jeff Corey from killing them. An interesting counterpoint to the paranoia of the day, perhaps, but with little more than good intentions to recommend it.

Or listening to, for that matter. Even the soundtrack is a bore. <br /><br />Honestly, this isn't the worst gay movie I've seen (that would be Regarding Billy), but it's down there very close to the bottom of the barrel.<br /><br />This thing drags and drags and drags. It's not that the plot is inane--in the hands of a good writer it might have worked . . . it certainly could have been much more entertaining. There's not one plot point you can't see coming for ten miles down the road. The dialog is flat. The jokes are old. To add insult to injury, it's full of one-dimensional, stereotypical gays. <br /><br />Nothing in this movie convinced me that the situation or the relationship of the two leads was possible, much less real. There was no chemistry, no dynamic, in fact no evidence of why the leads love each other . . . we're just told they're in love. Hard to figure when they have nothing in common and aren't compatible sexually. They like the same book? Huh?<br /><br />The acting is not totally bad, but the pacing is excruciatingly slow. I mean, almost Jarmusch- slow, but without Jarmusch quality. In fact, that would be a good barometer for you. If you like Jarmusch films, avoid this one.

Okay, this movie starts out and it *looks* like it's going to be a cute comedy about a completely obsessed soap opera fan. She has no touch with reality whatsoever outside of the soap (sort of the inverse of the main characters in "Pleasantville") and runs away to Los Angeles to meet a fictional character. Well it is a cute movie... but at the same time, it is ALSO a dark, very violent movie about two hitmen who are out to kill Betty for reasons way to complex to recount here. Either plotline would have been enough on it's own, but "Nurse Betty" contains both stories at once, and the effect is very jarring. I didn't much enjoy it.

When robot hordes start attacking major cities, who will stop the madman behind the attacks? Sky Captain!!! Jude Law plays Joe Sullivan, the ace of the skyways, tackling insurmountable odds along with his pesky reporter ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) and former flight partner, Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie).<br /><br />Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow may look and feel like an exciting movie but it really is quite dull and underwhelming. The film's running time is 106 minutes yet it feels so much longer because there is no substance in this movie. The visuals were great and the film did a nice job on that. However, there is nothing to support these wonderful visuals. The film lacks a story and interesting characters making the while thing quite dull and unnecessary. I blame director and writer Kerry Conran. He focuses too much on the visuals and spent little time on the actual story. The movie is like a girl with no personality, after awhile it kind of gets bland and tiring. Sky Captain represents a beautiful girl with no personality. It's simply just another case of style over substance.<br /><br />The acting is surprisingly average and that's not really their fault since they had very little to work with. The main reason I watched this movie is because of Angelina Jolie. However, the advertising is quite misleading and she is only in the film for about 30 minutes. Her performance is surprisingly bland as well. Jude Law gives an okay performance though you would expect a lot more from him. Gwyneth Paltrow was just average, nothing special at all. Ling Bai's performance was the only one I really liked. She gives a pretty good performance as the mysterious woman and she was the only interesting character in the entire film.<br /><br />The movie is not a complete bust though. There were some "wow" and exciting scenes. There just weren't enough of them. The film just doesn't have that hook to really make it memorable. It was actually quite bland and it wasn't very engaging at all. It's too bad the film wasn't very good since it had such a promising premise. In the end, Sky Captain is surprisingly below average and not really worth watching. Rating 4/10

I'm not sure how I missed this one when it first came out, but I am glad to have finally seen it.<br /><br />This movie takes place in and around the 19th century red light district of Okabasho, Japan. It tells the tale of prostitution, caste systems and women who are strong in a society based upon the strength of the samurai code of Japan.<br /><br />It is uniquely Akira Kurosawa! Even though he died before he could direct this movie, his adaptation of the screenplay shows. His view of the Japanese world and caste system is renowned and sheds light upon how these systems interact with each other. The characters may revolve around each other, but the caste system stays intact when each character goes back to the world they belong in. The samurai warrior who drifts into the good hearted and loving prostitute's world goes back to his life, while she embarks on a another road with a man who is part of her caste system..lowest of the low. Many prize the world of the samurai above all others, but yet, it is the lower caste inhabitants who can support each other and who can love without restraint. The samurai in this movie turns out to be the weak one, while the classless lovers prove to be the honorable ones. <br /><br />The movie deserves a higher rating. It is a tale of survival of women in feudal Japan. During this time frame, men were thought to be the survivors..the strong ones while women were thought to be just mindless and weak property. This movie highlights the strength of Japanese women and how they did what they had to for survival, and how their strength enabled the Japanese culture to continue on as it has.<br /><br />I recommend "The Sea is Watching" to anyone who is a fan of Akira Kurosawa and even if they're not a fan. It is a lovely, quiet and soul sustaining movie, and one to be treasured for any movie collection.

Ru Paul plays a secret agent called Starrbooty. She teams up with another drag queen agent to fight the evil Annaka Manners (Candis Cayne)and get her kidnapped niece back...or something like that. Seriously-- I had trouble concentrating on the plot! The movie is seemingly directed by somebody with severe ADD--quick camera cuts nonstop that make it impossible to focus on anything. The dialogue is incomprehensible at times and when you can hear it you wish it remained incomprehensible! The acting is actually pretty OK except for Ru Paul who overacts to an embarrassing degree. Also the film is full of disgusting bathroom humor that is just revolting and not even remotely funny. After 30 minutes I had to leave because I was bored, sick and just couldn't stand it anymore. I pride myself on sitting through anything but this went WAY beyond my limits! People are comparing this to the early work of John Waters. I disagree. Waters' work is sick but good--this is just sick. Avoid.

I saw this movie at a college film festival back in the 70's - I have been waiting FOREVER for this movie to come out on video (finally it's out). It was made in Brazil, so I assumed that was why it hadn't made it to video yet. I have been checking video stores for the past 15 years waiting for this outstanding movie to come out! It is one of my all-time favorites - but be warned, it is weird, like Werner Herzog weird - its weirdness stems from its super-realism.<br /><br />The movie is based on a true incident back a few centuries ago, in pre-colonial times, when Europeans were first encountering the tribes in the Amazon. A white man is mistaken by a savage tribe of cannibals as their enemy, so they intend to kill him. Before they dispatch him, though, they make him part of their tribe (their custom). The entire movie is like watching a National Geographic documentary as he becomes an accepted member of their tribe. That's it. Cosmic plotline? No. Intense insight into the variety of human life? Definitely.<br /><br />Oh yeah... be warned... this film has definite nudity - this is not some Hollywood schlock flick about noble savages... this film tells it like it was (re-read above: National Geographic, super-realism)<br /><br />

When watching A Bug's Life for the first time in a long while, I couldn't help but see the comparisons with last year's Happy Feet. As far as the main storyline goes, they are very similar, an outcast doing what he can to fit in while also attempting to be special. It just goes to show you how much better that film could have been without its liberal diatribe conclusion. A lot of people disagree with me when I say that I really like Pixar's sophomore effort. Sure it doesn't manage to capture the splendor of Toy Story, nor is the animation out of this world. However, the story is top-notch and the characters are wonderful to spend time with. With plenty of laughs and a moral center to boot, I could watch this one just as much as the studio's other classics.<br /><br />There is a lot about finding strength from within to conquer all odds here. Between our lead Flick needing to keep his self-esteem up to save his colony, the colony needing to open their eyes onto a new way of living for the future, and the circus bugs finding that they are more than just untalented sideshow freaks, everyone evolves into a better bug by the end of the story. Even the villain Hopper is fully fleshed and menacing for the right reasons. He is not doing it to be mean, but instead understands the fact that the ants outnumber him 100 to 1. He needs them to fear him in order to not have to worry about them finding out the truth. It is very much a circle of life, but not one that can't evolve with the ages.<br /><br />When thinking about the animation, it is actually quite good. Compared to Antz, the rival film of the time, this is much more realistic and less cartoony. The water is rendered nicely, as is the foliage. You don't have to look much further than the ants' eyes to see how much detail went into the production. The reflections and moistness, despite the smooth exterior, shows the realism. All the bugs are finely crafted too. The flies in the city and the crazy mix of creatures recruited to save the ants are never skimped on, whether for a small role or a more expanded one. It is also in the city that we see the workmanship on the environments. While Ant Island is nice, it is just the outdoors. Bug City contains plenty of garbage doubling as buildings and clubs. It is a great showing of humor and inventiveness to see what the animators used for everything. From the ice cube trays as circus stands, the animal crackers box as circus wagon—complete with full nutrition guide on the side—and crazy compilation of boxes to create a Times Square of billboards and facades, everything is done right.<br /><br />As far as much of the humor, you have to credit the acting talent for wonderful delivery and inspired role choices. No one could do a male ladybug better than Dennis Leary with his acerbic wit. I dare you to think of someone better. Our leads are great too with Dave Foley as Flick and Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Princess Atta, as well as the always-fantastic Kevin Spacey as Hopper. Spacey not only steals many scenes from the movie, but also takes center stage in the bloopers during the credits. Yes, A Bug's Life was the originator of animated outtakes from Pixar, a tradition that has continued on. With many tongue-in-cheek bug jokes laced throughout, you also have to give props to the huge supporting cast. Full of "those guy actors," it is people like Richard Kind, Brad Garrett, and the late Joe Ranft as Heimlich the worm who bring the biggest laughs.<br /><br />Overall, it may be the simplest story brought to screen by Pixar, one that has been told in one form or the other numerous times over the years, but it is inspired enough and fresh enough to deliver an enjoyable experience. There are joyous moments, sad times, and even action packed scenes of suspense with birds coming in to join the fun. Complete with a couple of my favorite Pixar characters, Tuck and Roll, there isn't too much bad that I can think of saying about it.

Why can't this type of compact, entertaining mystery be filmed in the new century? It keeps the viewer thinking and guessing all the way. The cast is a great ensemble. William Powell exhibits true star quality. Who knows--perhaps he was rehearsing for his future as Nick Charles. He is a joy to watch. One also can see why Eugene Pallette made more than 200 films. He is a great supporting character actor and his excellent chemistry with Powell is fun to watch. Mary Astor does above average work in a not very meaty role. All other hands chip in to make this a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend 73 minutes. I suspect Michael Curtiz had a ball directing his one. Bravo!

...the first? Killjoy 1. But here's the review of Killjoy 2:<br /><br />(contains spoilers, so beware readers)<br /><br />Oh my. Oh, my, my, my. I'll start off with telling you that I had no hopes in the least bit that this movie would be good. Considering that Killjoy (the first movie) is without a doubt the worst movie ever made, the sequel didn't have much promise.<br /><br />As expected, it didn't deliver.<br /><br />The deaths were even lamer than in the first movie. There was absolutely no eye candy whatsoever, and every single prop looked so fake that I wouldn't be surprised if they had a kindergarten class make them.<br /><br />Look, I don't even know where to begin. Hm, for starters, the movie wasn't even feature length. It was only an hour and eight minutes long (68 min.), but then again, ending it early was actually a reprieve. In fact, that's the only reason that this movie wasn't as bad as the first, because the first was longer.<br /><br />Usually, I don't give spoilers in reviews, but since I don't want any of you to go through the torture of watching this waste of film, I'm going to spoil away. Not that there's much to spoil.<br /><br />Let's start with the ending. KILLJOY IS THE PUSSIEST KILLER EVER. It takes explosions, firebombs, guns, etc. to kill all of the normal serial killers in horror movies. Guess what it took to kill Killjoy? A F***ING GLASS OF WATER. No lie. In the end, a girl picked up a cup of water and threw the water on Killjoy's face. Then Killjoy started screaming, and they tried to make it look like his face was melting by putting dried rubber cement on his forehead. Then he laid there, and the people went to sleep.<br /><br />Now let's hit the acting. VERY TERRIBLE. Not even one person was believable in the least bit. I don't even know what to say, other than it looks like they just hired a few hobos living on the streets to act in this film.<br /><br />Seriously, I honestly doubt that they spent any more than 100 dollars total to make this movie. They had nothing. Most of it took place in the woods, which wouldn't have cost them anything to film on. The actors weren't giving in any effort whatsoever, so it's blatant that they were probably "working" for free. They didn't have any kind of special effects or nice props, and they probably used ketchup for the blood. Hell, who am I kidding? They probably didn't even spend 100 dollars. They probably spent $3.29 on a bottle of ketchup and that was it. A f**kin' movie made with a budget of $3.29.<br /><br />For Bob's sake, they couldn't even afford to rent a cop uniform. In the end, after Killjoy dies, the girl wakes up and says "Where is he?" and the main woman replies, "He's gone." Then, suddenly, some fat goofy guy with scars on his face pops out of nowhere with a cell phone saying "You have a phone call." The girl answers and says "Oh, hi mom!" and smiles. Then the fat goofy guy walks along to reveal that it's a police officer. However, he's wearing khaki pants, and a regular button up green shirt, with a lame badge on the front pocket. Hell, it was probably the badge that the director got when he was in safety patrol in 3rd grade. Then they all got into a tan blazer and drove off as the credits rolled. They couldn't even get a police cruiser so they just got a tan blazer. F**kin' lame. Killjoy didn't even have the ice cream van that he had in the first movie.<br /><br />Killjoy is without a doubt the most flamboyantly gay slasher EVER. If there was a slasher that wore hot pink spandex and carried a rainbow flag, he STILL would not be as gay as Killjoy. Killjoy isn't funny either (and believe me, he DID try to be).<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is an extremely lame threat given by one of the delinquents. Somebody makes a comment to some boy about not passing third grade, to which the boy responds, "I'll show you third grade!" in a threatening manner. That has to be the absolute worst threat that I've ever heard. "I'll show you third grade!"<br /><br />This movie doesn't even work on a "so bad, it's good" level. It's filth. Unless you did something bad, and you are feeling so guilty about it that you want to punish yourself severely, DON'T watch this movie.<br /><br />Just remember; if a flaming homosexual clown with a huge black afro tries to bore you to death with gay jokes (and attempt to kill you at the same time), just throw some water at him. Case closed.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: .1 out of 10

It was released in France on dvd several years ago--I wish it would be re-released with English subtitles. Do not confuse this with a remake with Penelope Cruz which gets poor reviews. Gerard Phillippe is a peasant who is told by a fortune teller that he will marry the daughter of the king. He sets off to join the army and goes to war. His love, however, is Gina Lollabrigida in an early movie for her. I won't spoil the end. Gerard Phillippe died a few years later at a young age, a great loss to moviedom.

"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.<br /><br />Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.<br /><br />Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes. <br /><br />Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.<br /><br />Pathetic.

When you read the summary of this film, you might come to think that this is something of an odd film and in some ways it is, for the primary character of this film, Gerard Reve (Jeroen Krabbé) is haunted by visions and hallucinations. The visions Gerard see are all (more or less) subtle hints to what will happen to him as the story continues and it is great fun for the viewer to try and figure out the symbolism used in the film. Despite the use of symbolism and a couple of hints to the ending of the film, the film maintains a very high level of excitement throughout and does not get boring for one minute. This is mostly due to the great performances of Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk (Christine) and the great direction of the whole by Paul Verhoeven. His directing style is clearly visible and one can say, looking at it from different angles, that 'De Vierde Man' is a typical Verhoeven film. It will not only seem typical for people familiar with his American films because of the nudity and the graphic violent scenes, but it will also seem typical for people familiar with his Dutch films, because of the same things and his talent to tell a great story. When people watch Verhoevens American films, short sighted people might say, he has no talent in telling a good story and only focuses on blood and sex. That is what some people think, whereas I think that he is a very talented director who tries to convey a deeper message in each with each film. Although not a good film, Hollow Man (his last American film) is an example that Verhoeven can do more than science fiction splatter movies and maybe companies should trust him more and offer him more various films to helm. He needs that. Just watch his Dutch films. Not only do they show that he needs a certain amount of freedom, but they also show that he has remarkable talent. 'De Vierde Man' brought him one step closer to Hollywood and is certainly one of his best.<br /><br />8 out of 10

In case you dear readers never heard, this movie was the main inspiration for last year's Samuel L. Jackson-Eugene Levy clunker The Man. This 80s-drenched buddy action-comedy pairs short 'n stubbly Billy Crystal and the late Ethiopian Shim-Shammer Gregory Hines together as some witty Chi-town cops who don't play by the rules. That's pretty much the extent of the movie. Interest is somewhat peaked by Hines' line delivery that is spookily similar to Will Smith's and by cameos of now-more-famous actors like Memento's Joe Pantoliano and "NYPD Blue's" Jimmy Smits. My favorite scene is, I dunno, the car chase on the tracks, I guess. Basically, I just view this movie as a major helping hand in the demolition of action buddy flicks. Well, this and Lethal Weapon 4... and Rush Hour 2... and The Man...

In 1954 Marlon Brando was THE hot actor after his performances in Streetcar Named Desire and On The Waterfront. Frank Sinatra had yet to re-invent himself on the silver screen. But Sinatra's portrayal as the erstwhile Nathan Detroit, helped re-establish Sinatra with his fans.<br /><br />It is a great screen version of a great play and the choices of leads and support players are terrific. Imagine a movie where Brando sings? This was his one and only singing role as he portrayed Sky Masterson. In addition the female leads, Jean Simmons and Vivian Blaine(replaying her stage role as Nathan's long suffering girlfriend Adelade), put in superlative efforts. Special mention goes to the great Stubby Kaye(as Nicely Nicely), and with all due respect to Eric Clapton, no one's version of Rockin' The Boat even comes close to Stubby's. Sheldon Leonard, who would go on to fame as TV producer of such shows as The Danny Thomas Show and The Dick Van Dyke Show does "Harry The Horse" wonders, B.S.Pulley is excellent as the harsh mannered and rough talking "Big Julie", and even Regis Toomey offers his excellence as "Brother Arvide".<br /><br />It is one of the fun musicals to see, good comedy, and you get Sinatra and Brando. Soooooo "Luck Be A Lady Tonight" and brother..."it's your dice"

Anyone who appreciates fine acting and ringing dialogue will love<br /><br />this film. Taken from Ronald 'Taking Sides' Harwood, it's a funny<br /><br />and ultimately excoriating analysis of a relationship between two<br /><br />very 'actorly' types. Albert Finney is sublime as the despotic<br /><br />Shakespearean actor who barely notices the world war raging<br /><br />around him, so intent is he on the crumbling fortunes of his theatre<br /><br />company and his own psychological and emotional breakdown.<br /><br />Tom Courtenay is matchless as Norman, the 'Dresser' of the title,<br /><br />whose apparent devotion turns out to be anything but selfless.<br /><br />Really a must see.

Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra HATED each other while doing this film and in the years following it.Brando asked Sinatra for some singing lessons,but Sinatra (who was already upset over the fact that he was cast as Nathan Detroit,when he wanted the part of Skye Masterson)wanted to be the star singer in the production and didn't want any one to be better than he was.He told Brando to get lost,so to get back at him Marlon kept screwing up the scene in the diner where Sinatra was eating cheesecake so that he would have to keep eating,eating and eating.In the later years,Sinatra gave Brando the nickname "Mumbles" or "Mr.Mumbles" because of the way he talks.

Peter Crawford discovers a comet on a collision course with the moon. But when the government doesn't believe him (dumb fact #1). He builds a shelter in deep underground and is drawing lots to see who will go. Plus is willing to kill to save humanity (dumb fact #2). With millions of dollars of technology, how could a civilian see what NASA could not? Plus, the ends justifies the means moral of this story is just plain WRONG!!! This movie is improbable and totally unbelievable. What was running through these people minds, why the hell do crap piles like this get the green light? Some times I wonder who someone has to **** to get a movie made in this ****ing town.

I hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.

If you have read the books then forget the characters that Tolkien built in your head. The representation of hobbits, dwarves etc have had the 'disney' treatment. The dark riders are excellent, and as I had always imagined from the books.<br /><br />Cinematically this is an excellent film, mixing live motion and animation to produce amazing effects for the year. I only wish he (Bakshi) had been given the money to complete his epic.<br /><br />It's worth having the video as they will be worth a bit after the 2001 Lord of the Rings !!

We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.<br /><br />One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.<br /><br />If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.

One of a few movies filmed at Coronado High School in Scottsdale, AZ in the late 80's as well as Just One of the Guys, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Just Perfect (which was a segmented movie played during the Mickey Mouse Club.) Movie is definitely for kids as the previous comments have it pretty right on. <br /><br />Coronado has gone through an overhaul in the past couple of years and many of the buildings seen in this film are now gone. The field where they are playing catch is adjacent to the football field, one of the few areas still there. The internal scenes near the lockers I believe were in the old 200 building.<br /><br />Unless it is playing late at night on the Disney channel it may be a very hard to find flick. How they ever made sequels to this is beyond me.

This movie takes the psychological thriller to new depths. Well written by Shane Black, the film is executed phenomenally by the cast under the watchful eye of Director Jack Swanstrom. Clearly, Swanstrom is a director that we should look out for in the future. His strength lies in his adaptation of personal experiences both on screen and in the classroom.<br /><br />This thought-provoking film is a must see for anyone who can appreciate action, drama, suspense, and mystery. As with all good films, the viewer goes on a journey of their own to find their individual interpretation of the movie. The mystical aspect of the film is intriguing and adds to the suspense. You find your self looking for the answers along with Marquette. Audiences have liked the movie on the festival circuit - with many awards received, they must have agreed that A.W.O.L. (2006) is well worth watching. <br /><br />I'd love to own a copy - how do I go about getting one?

I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see "Kentucky Fried Movie" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO!

I bought this movie at a thrift store. Months before, my friend told me about it when we were talking about dumb movies we've seen. Once I spotted the cassette, I knew I had to have it. I watched it that night. I could tell it was going to be very cheesy and cheaply done. . . That's what drew me to it. I popped it in and I laughed the whole way through. I recognized Gregory (The Ice Cream Man), but I didn't recognize his name and I couldn't remember where I saw him. Later, while watching the Andy Griffith Show, Clint Howard (Ice Cream Man) was featured as an extra since he is Ron Howard (Opie Taylor)'s brother. I saw the credits and I gasped. I turned to my mom, who was also watching the show, and said, "That's the Ice Cream Man!!" She, too, gasped. This movie is great, but only for laughs and criticalness. It is the perfect example of a cheesy horror flick. If you feel like laughing as well as poking fun at low-budget movies, rent this video.

Alright so this episode makes fun of Al Gore. I'm sure it pisses a few liberals off. The thing is South Park makes fun of everybody, much like the Simpsons did. If you get offended that a politician you like is made fun of then maybe you need a better sense of humor and are taking the show too seriously. With that being said this episode is hilarious and one of the best. Al Gores portrayal is hilarious, Cartman's scheme goes terribly wrong and the results will have you rolling on the floor laughing. It is basically everything you would ever want out of a south park episode and it is easily one of my favorites. I'll won't comment too much further on the plot because I don't want to give anything away.

This movie is best described or compare to "Big Fish" (the movie by Tim Burton). But it's a less glamorous and more in you face tale. And of course here it's not the father, but his grandfather who tells the stories.<br /><br />The movie's narrative also moves back and forth (so the story outline here at IMDb, might tell you more than you would like to read, before watching the movie). It's funny and engaging enough, even though you get from one story to another and have some dramatic moments too. It also surprises you here and there, with things you wouldn't expect. A nice little movie then, that deserves your attention, especially if you like movies like that! :o)

Despite its budget limitations, this is a great film, proof that effort and imagination can overcome lack of cash. The opening, in which cave-paintings seem to show how some dinosaurs at least survived into the age of human beings, is a nice red herring. After that, a meteor comes down into a lake and causes heat which, in turn, causes the hatching of a frozen dinosaur egg (maybe the cave-paintings suggest instead that this isn't the first time such a thing has happened). When the prehistoric beast appears, it's a well-animated Plesiosaur which is soon causing disappearances in the local area. Alright, so it's not Jurassic Park, but it's still genuine entertainment for fans of monster movies.

When Samantha Eggar (as Phyllis Dietrickson) answers the door of her house swathed in a towel, you realize that as competent an actress as Eggar may be, she doesn't have the hypnotic allure of Barbara Stanwyck. And it is not entirely Eggar's fault. In the original film, Wilder had Stanwyck not only appear in a towel, but she enters the scene on the second floor balcony of the house. And she doesn't "come out"; she appears, almost as if by magic. Walter Neff is staring up at her from below on the first floor. There is a reason for this. Stanwyck is much higher than Neff (Fred MacMurray) when they are first introduced. It is not just the towel. The towel adds to the seductive allure. Her pose is like a Greek Goddess overlooking her domain, and, in a strange way, you feel as if, from the start, she is actually controlling the entire situation. She has sexual, even magic, power. This person is no ordinary housewife. This person is a mystery with secrets hidden within.<br /><br />Back to 1973. The remake has Crenna knock on the front door. Stanwyck's stand-in, Eggar, answers the door with a towel around her. There is no "appearance". She simply opens the door. The alluring superiority that grabs the audience at the first appearance of Stanwyck in 1944 is entirely absent in 1973. She opens the door with a towel around her. It may be sexy in a Charlie's Angels sort of way, but it's not nearly as mysterious. The filmmakers of the remake seem to misunderstand Wilder's point. The script may have said "Phyllis appears in towel" so the filmmakers of the remake simply follow the instructions and include the required towel. The point is not the towel. The point is the enigmatic quality of Phyllis, and the potential power she wields. Wilder gave her a towel to add to her mystique. The filmmakers of the remake gave her a towel because that's what Wilder did. And in the choice of shot, lost all of Phyllis' mystique.<br /><br />Richard Crenna also seems miscast. He seems like he's "acting" and not really in the midst of the dilemma. Part of the problem is Crenna appears so much like a 70's actor. He can't get into the 1940's. When MacMurray first speaks into the microphone, sweat begins to drip from his face. No sweat on Crenna. And they also changed one of the crucial lines at the beginning. In the original, Neff says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." In the 1973 version, Crenna says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't want the woman." Did the filmmakers completely misunderstand the entire point of the story? Or were they dumbing it down for a "television" audience?<br /><br />This made-for-TV movie is a by-the-numbers rendition. All the sharp edge of the original is lost. The only stand-out, maybe, is Lee J. Cobb in the role made famous by Edward G. Robinson. But he cannot save the loss of intensity of the original. This 1973 boring remake is a forgettable TV-movie made probably by the same people who did "Gilligan's Island". They might as well have tried to remake "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind". If mediocrity is the best one can hope for, what's the point? The 1944 classic is a Film with a capital "F". This made-for-TV remake deserves an "F" grade, or, maybe a "D" for dumb.

Just watched the film for the 3rd time and enjoyed Lindsay Crouse and the rest of the cast just as much as before. It just keeps getting better and better. You simply have to marvel at the carefully measured way of speech, the slow deliberate action, everything being exactly in place.<br /><br />Truly one of the great ones and definitely my all-time favourite!!!

I was in my early 20's, just graduating from college when this movie appeared. Seeing it was event of great impact, not only because of the high quality of the film (as evidenced by its many awards), but because of its place in the historical context of 1959. Because of social progress since then, it is nearly impossible to fathom that my college had only begun admitting (carefully screened) black students in 1953. A mainstream, high-budget extravaganze with an almost entirely black cast was a distinct novelty in 1959.<br /><br />The movie was given a deluxe roadshow (reserved seat) presentation in only the best theatres, complete with a souvenir program detailing the lavish care that had been taken with lighting and color, multi-track stereo sound, etc. Almost every black entertainer that we white people had any knowledge of was in the movie. Gershwin's music, superbly performed, and the sheer universal humanity of the story was tremendously moving.<br /><br />I was recently able to obtain a faded copy of a two-hour cutting of the film, and repeated viewings have confirmed my opinion. Time has made what seemed steamy sex scenes in 1959 seem quite tame, but the musical quality has not diminished. Sammy Davis and Pearl Bailey are masterful in their portrayals. What a crime that the young black artists of today are unable to see these performers at the peak of their careers!

What's the matter with you people? John Dahl? From "Rounders" and "Unforgettable"? TOO Quirky? Knocking emma Thompson and Alan Rickman for having fun playing against type? And somebody liked the Gingerbread Man?<br /><br />I rented this not knowing anything about it and found it about as nifty a video find as you can get. Never insulting, well thought out, funny, scary. I disagree with the naysayers, clearly. I thought the story itself was unremarkable but the great cast, which most likely means the director was paying attention, lifted it to super cool status. Good sound design also (much more appreciated in surround, but I'm not bragging). And yes, I'm a girl, so maybe it has a slight female slant (the guys in the gang are pretty worthwhile). All in all, a 9 and a hearty RECOMMEND.

Having grown up in New Jersey and having spent many a day and night on the gritty streets of New York in the 1970's, watching a film like "The Seven-Ups", or its kindred spirit, "The French Connection", always evokes fond memories of a time and place which, for some, might have been NYC's darkest hour, but which for me, in my early twenties, was always one fun-filled adventure after another. I truly miss those times. As one reviewer remarked, "This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture.". A spot-on characterization of both the film and the city. The stellar attributes of this film -- the plot, the cast, the characters, and of course, the car chase -- are amply described in many of the reviews here, so I won't go into that except to say that one of my favorite moments occurs during the car chase, when the camera focuses on Richard Lynch riding shotgun to the maniacal Bill Hickman. The look of horror on Richard Lynch's face, along with the defensive gestures, are so out-of-character for an actor much better known as a source of terror rather than an object of it, that it is actually comical to watch. I get a chuckle out of it every time.

I have not seen many low budget films i must admit, but this is the worst movie ever probably, the main character the old man talked like, he had a lobotomy and lost the power to speak more than one word every 5 seconds, a 5 year old could act better. The story had the most awful plot, and well the army guy had put what he thought was army like and then just went over the top, i only watched it to laugh at how bad it was, and hoped it was leading onto the real movie. I cant believe it was under the 2 night rental thing at blockbusters, instead of a please take this for free and get it out of our sight. I think there was one semi decent actor other than the woman, i think the only thing OK with the budget was the make up, but they show every important scene of the film in the beginning music bit. Awful simply awful.

I don't know what it is about the crew from CKY, but everything they produce seems to be genius in its simplicity and stupidity. Haggard is so incredibly dumb and funny that it's almost comedic excellence. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense, but who cares?<br /><br />It made me laugh my ass off. A must-have for the CKY/Jackass aficionado!

Hobgoblins is a very cheap and badly done Gremlins rip-off. That's the best thing one can say about this stinkpile. Pretty much everyone in the cast was chosen for their looks and not their acting ability. It was very painful to watch.<br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs.

What does the Marquis de Sade have to do with Egyptian archaeology and mermaid worshipping cults? Tobe Hooper tries to answer that question in one weird little film.<br /><br />Genie is a young cutie who visits her nerdy archaeology father in Alexandria, Egypt. Genie gets caught up with a mysterious hooker (and blatant lesbian) who services daddy on the side. Daddy gets sent back to the site, where he uncovers a tomb with what appears to be a mermaid on it. Genie meets a descendant of the Marquis de Sade, and falls for a hunky Egyptian (providing the film's hottest scenes). Eventually, Genie finds out she is to be a sacrifice and the protracted and bloody climax gets going. Wrapped around this story is footage of the Marquis de Sade in prison, talking to a portrait of what looks like Genie.<br /><br />Robert Englund is terrific as both the Marquis and his descendant. His acting abilities have always been sideswiped by his makeup requirements, so he is allowed to shine here. His best performance is still in "Killer Tongue," if you have not seen that yet.<br /><br />The rest of the cast, including young Genie, are pretty and average. The script, however, is problematic. You will quickly learn that the Marquis scenes are completely unnecessary, except maybe the film makers had access to the cool set. The mermaid cult that eventually saves Genie makes no sense whatsoever. Who the mermaid is is never explained, and its link to Christianity (which is hyped throughout the film) is nothing. The film is very anti-Christian, as the archaeologist is a Bible spouting father, but likes to be tied up by the local prostitute. There are plenty of scenes of depravity and violence, but Hooper probably had little idea of what the screenwriters were trying to say. I know I have no idea.<br /><br />So why am I recommending this film? It is weird. There is an extended sex scene. For the ladies, hunky Egyptian rides a horse completely nude. Englund is marvelous. Do you like snakes? This film is full of them. This is like Roger Corman with a bigger budget. Knowing Hooper somehow came up with "Crocodile" after this is rather sad. "Night Terrors" is not perfect, but definitely worth a winking, unserious look.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, some sexual violence, gore, profanity, female nudity, male nudity, sexual content, sexual references, and drug abuse.<br /><br />

Let's set one thing straight: this movie does not seek to redefine the genre, it's not Dr. Strangelove o Young Frankenstein. It's a silly flick, with three great female leads (can't remember any other comedy with similar characteristics), Rachel Dracht and Amy Poehler from SNL and indie queen Parker Posey, charming as ever. The story is basic: the three gals were "losers" in college, and are still after wards it. Poehler is a dog trainer (who can't even get a date with a blind guy), Posey is an assistant for a senator (who "hasn't been touched by a man since Clinton was in office"... i catched that one several minutes later... i'm a little slow, OK!), and Dracht has a gay fiancée (Seth Meyers from SNL, funny). They have to prevent the "uncool" daughter of the senator (the always cute Amber Tamblyn from the TV series "Joan of Arcadia") to embarrass her during spring break. So of course they have to go to watch over her, and some hilarity ensues. All in all, a light, simple comedy, quite short, and quite enjoyable

... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts „heads down" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...<br /><br />I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the „subject". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.

Style over substance. But what a style it is. "The Cell" is the internal version of most serial killer movies. Unfortunately, the story hardly supports the visuals.<br /><br />Psychotherapist Catherine Deane (J-Lo) goes into her patients' dreams via artificial means to discover and help them over come their phobias and obsessions. A new patient whose fallen into a coma, is brought to her attention by the FBI. He's a serial killer who drowns his female victims then poses their bodies in grotesque scenarios like mannequins. Deane must enter the killer's mind and navigate through his sick fantasies in order to find and save his latest victim. <br /><br />Director Tarsem Singh has incredible visions and set pieces for this production. Each dream sequence is like a nightmare-ish painting in motion, from the landscapes to the costumes. <br /><br />But the plot suffers from lack of history of its characters. Stargher is the only person with a thorough background and he's the last person you want to care about. Without him, you basically have a movie that moves in the present tense only, which is a shame since the movie is so visually stunning and genuinely scary. Lopez is wasted but she's not that amazing an actress anyway, though she's as gorgeous as ever. And Vince Vaughn? I don't even know why he was chosen. This is not his forte and he overacts to boot. He tried too hard to become his character and it showed. Stick to comedy, Vince! Even so, this movie is so visually frightening, I still watch this movie with the lights on and can never fall asleep right away afterward.

This is a film about loneliness and how the distance – physical and emotional -- between people tends to stultify relationships.<br /><br />The narrative is simple to the point of banality: a young man Yusuf (Emin Toprak), from a rural village, arrives in Istanbul to stay with his older and successful cousin Mahmut (Muzaffer Ozdemir); Yusuf wants work in the big city. After trying for a few weeks to find work without any success, the strain of having Yusuf living with him is too much for Mahmut. They quarrel – nothing physical, just verbal. Eventually, Yusuf goes, leaving Mahmut alone again. End of story...<br /><br />Except for the fact that the performance of the two men as relatives is one of the best on film. Much is said visually; dialog is used to bring out disagreement, distrust, hostility, and insecurity that exist within and between the two men.<br /><br />There are many visual gems in this film. For example, while searching for work, young Yusuf, needing a relationship, tries in vain to gain the attention of various young women around the city. The look on his face, as he is thwarted every time, says it all.<br /><br />Or, wanting a cigarette, Yusuf opens the door to the balcony of Mahmut's apartment and lights up in the frigid December air, leaving the door open; Mahmut, eventually gets up from his work desk, walks to the door (all glass) and the cousins just look at each other for what seems way too long a time. Then Mahmut closes the door, leaving Yusuf out in the cold. The metaphor is complete.<br /><br />Or, Mahmut cleaning up after Yusuf, grudgingly and with increasing anger; and all the while, Yusuf wastes his time chasing skirts instead of looking seriously for work, and spends Mahmut's money on a toy for a nephew… Yusuf is emotional, untidy, impulsive, and vulnerable. Mahmut is rational, logical, self-confident and a demanding control freak: the right-brain, left-brain dichotomy beautifully played out by two actors who say more with a look, a gesture, a frown than any words can convey.<br /><br />But, Mahmut is not completely emotionless: he still loves his ex-wife who tells him that she's off to Canada with her husband-to-be. Mahmut affects a distant and confident friendship with his ex, and makes sure that she is okay about going. He wishes her well. He says goodbye. He leaves the coffee shop where they were talking. Later when she calls to say a last goodbye, on the way to the airport, Mahmut goes there and secretly watches as she leaves. The poignancy of the emotion on his face, as she disappears through a door, is worth the wait.<br /><br />All in all, this is a standout piece of work by the two main actors and the director, Nuri Ceylan. Some might argue that the pace is too slow; but life goes slowly for much of the time, especially for those who are alone. The camera work is relatively simple also: choose the scene, set up the camera and lighting, and let the actors move across the scene, enter the scene and leave the scene, all the while keeping the camera still. There were a few panning shots, some high-angle tracking shots, a few rural scenes – but much of the film is shown as though on a stage with a fixed camera and a wide angle lens. Except for TV and radio music within the story, there is no music sound track. And, there are those many long silences as the two men sit and watch TV together and/or engage in very limited conversation.<br /><br />I saw this movie on TV so I was amused to see that, on a few occasions, I was watching TV as they were watching TV also. The silence in the movie matched the silence in my house (I was awake, all others in bed); my chair and position matched that of Mahmut's as he watched TV. Quite eerie, giving me a sense of almost 'being there' with him… And, I guess I was, in a sense.<br /><br />I'll say no more, because I want you to savor the other scenes that I haven't described. It's not a movie for everybody, for sure. More than any movie I've seen, it shows just how much we die when we are all alone – just as we are all alone when we die. Mahmut's face, as it fades to black in the final scene, will stay with me for a long, long time...<br /><br />Highly recommended for serious movie buffs.

Honestly, this is the best reality show anyone has ever come up with. In order to win the money you have to actually be INTELLIGENT. Not only that you've got to be brave, athletic, cunning, etc. It actually requires skill. Not like some lame-ass shows that are on these days. And yet, they only have two seasons of it! Bull..they need to bring this show back!! <br /><br />Although, they'll have a hard time pulling Anderson Cooper away from CNN. He was great.<br /><br />But seriously, it was an amazing show. You never knew who would be going when. And it was so much fun trying to figure out the mole yourself! It was a show you could actually play yourself if you wanted to!<br /><br />BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!!

A young man, named Danny, has run away from home and meets a drifter, named Bix, who agrees to tag along with Danny and watch out for him... and his money. They end up in a small town where they meet Carrie - a shy, naive girl working in her father's diner. Bix starts seeing Carrie but he plans on leaving soon (because he's a drifter, see? He's no good! Understand?). Meanwhile, the town creep, Jesse (played by a perfectly casted Jack Elam), keeps showing up at the diner and bothering Carrie. Danny keeps inadvertently picking up whores left and right (because he's loaded with money – he has almost a hundred dollars!) whom Bix has to constantly chase away (there are a lot of ambiguously gay overtones between Danny and Bix in this flick). Eventually, Bix and Danny decide to leave town but trouble is a-brewing, due to Jesse the creep.<br /><br />My review of the movie itself: a terrible, dated "Troubled Youth" flick from the '50s.<br /><br />My review of the MST3K version of the movie: I've got to say that this is one of the best episodes of MST3K ever. The riffing is dead-on, all the time. Except for the somewhat downbeat ending, this movie is easy material for Joel and the Bots, especially Danny's constant screw-ups that Bix has to rescue him from. The host segments are pretty good too, especially the segment with the `Train Song.' Hopefully, Rhino releases this episode to home video one day.

It was agonizingly bad movie. It will eat your heart out while you watch it. I beg you: don't watch this movie! You will hate you losing 1,5 hours of your lifetime! It's not as some movies that are so bad that you can watch those and enjoy... this movie is boring as... there is nothing as boring as this movie. You will hate yourself after watching this movie till the end. And you will hate yourself that you didn't listen to me.<br /><br />I hate myself. I tortured myself and I did watch this movie to the end. Now excuse me, I will shot myself. I have seen all.<br /><br />Please. Read this very carefully. Don't watch this film.<br /><br />Please!

I had just reached thirteen when I first saw this series and I am watching it again, on DVD, over thirty years later. The pictures over the opening credits have never left me. It has affected my view of the world and the peoples in it. My parents were with me long enough to have seen the series with me, and we always discussed the programme afterwards. It gave me a love for studying history and the highest marks I got in our school's public exams!<br /><br />Sir Laurence Olivier's voice and delivery is timeless and perfect. I get the feeling that the people who lived through it would feel that this is their version of the history of the Second World War. I cannot imagine ever getting bored looking at it. Maybe an similar Cold War series could now be contemplated, although who could replace Sir Laurence is difficult to imagine.<br /><br />Buy it!

Yes there are worse movies out there. Most of them made for fun, on a shoe string budget, or as a t.v. movie of the week, but even if this was the 'movie of the week' it would rate no more than two stars. It is a poor movie about a serious subject featuring an abused woman who flees the king of the slime people in to the protective arms of the king of the wussy people. ( If this is an attempt to show that she doesn't need a man to protect her than wuss man is superfluouse to the film and ought not to be in it at all). It has no suspense, no character development, and an heroine that could be outsmarted by a rotton onion. ( I think she flushes her wedding ring on a boat with a self contained tank rather than just dropping it overboard in the ocean (where her body should be anyway) and after the husband finds her, demonstrating that she is a moron, she still makes childish assumptions that lead to almost getting her killed.) I am always amazed when I see the sort of generally high rating a movie like this gets and it makes me realize that Dr. Seuss still has a huge untapped market of people who would be challenged by his work. After I get done laughting at humanity I weep.

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

(BIG SPOILERS) I've seen one other Takashi Miike film, and that was the very disturbing and brutal 'Audition', which was an examination of the Japanese ideals of femininity! In 'Visitor Q'- which I think means 'Visitor Question'- he examines, in a very disturbingly gross way, the family unit. Miike's surreal vision of a dysfunctional family almost tries to be Lynchian in terms of confusion and film-making, but ultimately lacks the style and intrigue. We, the audience, are introduced to a bizarre array of scenarios from the opening scene with the father figure (Kenichi Endo- who was actually quite good) paying for sex with his displaced daughter (Fujiko). Then, as the father returns home, he is struck on the head by "the visitor" (Kazushi Watanabe) wielding a fairly sizeable rock, and for some reason, they both end up back at the family home. The mother (Shungiku Uchida) is beaten and bullied by her son (Jun Muto) who is also beaten and bullied by his school peers. When the visitor enters the home, he somewhat menacingly establishes himself as part of the unit. Eventually, the family begin to improve their relationship, with assistance from the visitor, through milking breasts, murder and retaining a sense of family pride.<br /><br />And there are other crazy scenes that somehow bring the family closer together. It's has uncomfortable humour, but is equally frustratingly silly, and over-the-top in its weirdness. There is a necrophiliac scene that is utterly disgusting, but ends up being ridiculously funny as the scene progresses. Partly because of the situation itself, and partly because you can't believe the filmmakers and the actors are actually doing this! The style of the film is poor to say the least, and the plot is stupid and unbelievably weak. The characters themselves are all over the place, and while I understand this is not meant to be realistic, there is hardly any interest in these confronting characters and situations as all of them border on the absurd! The camera-work is sloppy, and doesn't have that cinematic feel that Lynch's work entails. It's hard to take this film seriously on a surrealist level, or on an interpretation of examining the family unit in Japan. It just seems that Miike was out to shock, and the film seems self-aware that it's "trying" to be shocking, and it becomes almost comical to be taken seriously. All in all, I would say that this film is a bizarrely dark comedy, but it looks and feels amateurish, and seems to unnecessarily want to shock. Miike's previous film, Audition, was finely balanced between disgusting horror, character development and technique- which established more intrigue in the way the film was crafted to allow the viewer to become engrossed with the plot. 'Visitor Q' is a step down as it tries too hard to be outlandishly bizarre and intentionally confronting, without really having much to say in the process! <br /><br />** out of *****!

Nowadays it is sort of a trend to look upon all shows from begin 90's as classics (people are so easily blinded by nostalgia these days), and while some of those shows were/are undoubtedly good, this one is just pure crap. I watched this show a lot back in those days since it got A LOT of reruns on TV back then, and even as a child I didn't like it. Even a 8-year old can see how much the people in Power Rangers are overacting, and how much the special-FX sucked even back then. When the show doesn't resort to the painfully bad 'fighting'-scenes, it plagues the viewer with this unnecessary soap-opera about a group of teens and they'r little social problems every now and then. I don't know about you, but I didn't give a rats ass about any of that at all, and its basically filler until they have to 'fight' some dude again in a very cliché alien-costume with fireworks or some toy-robot. You never feel 'involved' in some kind of way with this show, and the fact that most of the actors act like there really have no interest at all besides they'r wallet just enhances the lack of feeling.<br /><br />There is really nothing memorable about this show, and its pretty surprising that it got so many spin-offs (Beetleborgs is a good example). All it is is just a quick way to make some money though. I challenge any 'fan' to tell me what exactly stands out in episodes that is supposed to be so good because I couldn't find anything that is even slightly appealing to children. My guess is that most 'fans' of Power Rangers will tell me that I "just don't get it" anyway, or something along that line. I really don't care though; this was crap back then and it still crap now.

With all the potential for a good movie in its gorgeous settings, cast, and cinematography, this film's lacklustre script, leaden pace, and wooden performances produced only a major disappointment. With decent direction, editing, and musical score, this could have been a good movie, perhaps a dark version of Blake Edward's '10', instead of a weepy version of Ron Howard's 'Splash'.

From the beginning of the film I found myself laughing trying to keep quiet so I did not wake anyone in the house, this didn't continue so much throughout the rest of the film, I didn't find everything completely "laugh out loud" funny, but still I found certain things quite funny. At the beginning I had to hold in laughter when he drops the very crafty looking Hand Grenade down his sleeve. Then there are scenes where you will just smile, like when the Barber falls through a roof into someones apartment, I can see that being quite funny but in todays days and time that has been done quite a lot it didn't feel original, though at the time, I'm sure it was. I loved Hynkels (Hitlers) bursts of raging German with the nice subtle English translation.<br /><br />The final scene is wildly discussed because, well it's absolutely true, and so very intelligently constructed. Though the film is sixty eight years old the final scene is still relevant today, if this doesn't show how great a writer Chaplin is, then I don't know what will. The acting in this scene in particular was quite good, the Barber transcended the message perfectly and makes you realise the serious nature of the film, at the same time enjoying the humorous side.<br /><br />Another element about this film is the fact that this was such a brave film, that almost feels ahead of it's time. Of course, Chaplin did not know what was going to happen after 1940, he was not aware of the Holocaust (obviously), he's also gone on record as to saying if he had of known he would not of made this film. The fact this film is so anti-Hitler is interesting, it's more interesting that it wasn't anti-Germany which would be very easy to have done back in those times, Chaplin could of easily made this a propaganda film, but instead did something more, he made an honest film.<br /><br />I recommend anyone remotely interested in this film to see it, as well those who has studied or is studying Hitler and WWII to watch this film. It's entertaining to say the least, it doesn't have an annoying out-dated feel that some films of the time did. Unlike most "comedies" this film actually has a message it tries to bring to you, watch this film, you will be better off for having seen it.

My Take: A funny take on THE LION KING, posing as a sequel. Surprisingly amusing. <br /><br />Surprisingly, "Lion King 1 1/2" is actually another funny straight-to-video, that's worth a theatrical treatment. I don't see why Disney released this straight to video, and release crappy movies like "Chicken Little" and "Return to Neverland" theatrically. Those movies are better off seen in the video stores (in the "new releases" area), rather than seeing their theatrical posters outside the theaters.<br /><br />This one is merely a spoof of the first film (although the events in "Simba's Pride" hasn't taken place yet), on Timon (voiced by Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa's (voiced by Ernie Sabella) point of view. We get to see them make fun of the events in the first film. Original voices from the first film, like Matthew Broderick, Woopie Goldberg, Cheeche Martin and Robert Guillaume, return to their voicing roles from the first film, while Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller give some hilarious comedy relief as Timon's mom and grumpy uncle.<br /><br />So doesn't this sound fun. Maybe not now, but go watch it for yourself. The fact that it's not that serious in its plot makes it the more enjoyable. It's kinda like MST3000 with Timon and Pumbaa.<br /><br />Video movie rating: ***1/2 out of 5.

The only scary thing about this movie is the thought that whoever made it might make a sequel.<br /><br />From start to finish "The Tooth Fairy" was just downright terrible. It seemed like a badly-acted children's movie which got confused, with a "Wizard of Oz" witch melting and happy kiddies ending combined with some bad gore effects and swearing.<br /><br />Half of the cast seem completely unnecessary except for conveniently being there to get murdered in some fashion. The sister of the two brothers, Cherise the aura reader and Mrs. McDonald have entirely no point in the film - they could have included them in the main plot for some interesting side stories but apparently couldn't be bothered. The people watching the film know the characters are there for some bloody death scene but come on, at least TRY and have a slight plot for them. The story in general is weak with erratic behavior from the characters that makes you wish they all get eaten by the witch.<br /><br />Add the weak plot and the weak acting together (the children are particularly wooden) and the movie ends up a complete failure. If only MST3K could have had a go at this one ...

It's so depressing when film makers try to be cool and it's so obvious here. This has below average acting, laughable dialogue, split screens that are difficult to watch, and many goofs in it's attempt to be a period film and autobiographical. This film should be avoided at all costs. I was told not to go and see this film. I wish I had listened.

This is my first CG animated film that I've ever seen. Usually, the look of other animated films made me reticent to see them. Not Ice Age. I wanted to see it the moment I saw the trailer with Scrat, the hilarious sabertooth squirrel.<br /><br />Ice Age was sporadically funny and overall fun film to watch. The story is basically an animated version of Three Men and a Baby, set 20,000 years in the past. The visuals were great. Simply beautiful. It's one thing to create convincing aninmation, it's another thing altogether to create visually arresting stuff and Ice Age is great to look at with its stylized visuals. Blue Sky Studios is a company to look out for in the future.

Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City.

What a shame. What a terrible shame. The table was set, the candles were lit, the guests had arrived... and then...<br /><br />... well nothing really. Just pretentious drivel. It could have been great, OK maybe not great, but it could have been very good. All the elements were there but at the end of the day the bottle was empty: NO LIGHTNING! How that happened is a mystery with everything at the director's disposal...<br /><br />... the story was quite brave although it certainly needed considerable work with possibly several finishing rewrites to fix the story and tighten up the characters a lot (the only thing that was consistently and constantly and unnecessarily tight was the cinematography, but i'll get to that). But the direction was lousy, the acting was just that: _a-C-T-i-n-G_ with a heavy side of cheese and lots of ham, and then the cinematography...<br /><br />...well that was something to behold! But only if you are in film school's "Cinematography 101 how to never ever use a professional movie camera under any circumstances". Obviously the student had fallen asleep through part of the lecture's introduction and only heard "... use a professional movie camera..." then blissfully back to la la land as the sentence finished off.<br /><br />What can i say; amateurish and pretentious to the last! I can only see this film meant to appeal as a Chick Flick because it's supposed to be sad, but then falls flat and just ends up being 'sad' (as an excuse for a movie)... so that even those 'Chicks' wouldn't be fooled by this schlockenspiel! <br /><br />PS. I felt bad for Miss Diaz. She's a lot better at her craft than what this film allowed her to be, even though she was totally TOTALLY miscast. Actually i feel sorry for everyone in this movie except the director and (you guessed it) the cinematographer! I say '1st against the wall for them when the revolution comes!' OK, not really, after all "it was only a movie" but perhaps a good "tar and feather and running out of town" might be more satisfying or at the very least a lot more entertaining!!!<br /><br />TTFN :-(

I have not seen such a stupid,dumb movie since quite a while. It absolutely has no logic, no horror- doesn't scare you, no suspense, not thrilling.. I mean I didn't find even one part of the movie appealing..<br /><br />I don't know what they were thinking when they made the movie.. You watch the whole movie to find out that, there is a plant that can walk around, drag human dead bodies and eat human flesh. Not just that but it can also talk i.e. imitate sounds, like a cellphone ringing or human talking... so its like, the plant makes the noise of a cell phone ringing, so they go after the cellphone and find out its a plant... how intelligent of the plant to setup an ambush. <br /><br />This clearly is the creativity level of a primary school kid... Bad!!!

I don't know which was worse, the viewer's made dopes of, or the stars in this movie who look like dopes. Am I to believe that this woman raised this child for seven years, and never noticed the child was a bit dark ? Am I to believe her mother, her father, and her husband never once said, hmmm this child looks a bit dark ? Am I to believe when the courts ordered the mother to view the adopted parents records, that Lisa Hartman had this wow look on her face, when she told her mother, Christopher is half black ! What ! Was that for real,gee do you think so. So not only did the grandmother, and grandfather look dopey and stupid never once mentioning this, but i guess we were supposed to look surprised and say...hmmmmm omg he is half black ! Totally stupid movie, almost an embarrassment even to watch this !

Chupacabra Terror: 2/10: It was the Navy Seal team that tipped the balance from bad cheesy movie to just bad. Up till then there was a lot of bad movie baggage but the Seals… They are wearing bicycle helmets painted black. You know the ones with air holes that make every adult who wears them look like a complete tool. Of course the bass fishing boat they took to greet the cruise ship might have been another clue (it wouldn't make it across Tampa Bay let alone an ocean)… and their tactics wouldn't pass muster on an 3rd rate XBOX game.<br /><br />Does director John Shepphird have photos of John Rhys-Davies in a compromising position with a Hobbit? Because I can't think of any other reason he would be in this movie. The other actors have a great excuse. They are talentless unattractive hacks that couldn't get hired for an infomercial. The plot is that two men try to smuggle the mythical Chupacabra (Love saying that name) aboard a cruise ship and it gets loose.<br /><br />The sets consist of horrible cruise ship fakery (complete with airshafts the size of a small apartment), the monster killings are bottom of the barrel, there is no nudity, and a lot of really bad actors refuse to finish their death scenes. Of particular annoyance is a gigolo character from a 60's Doris Day movie.<br /><br />The cast bleeds ketchup while the Chupacabra bleeds day green glow in the dark blood. (Why a goat eating Mexican mammal would bleed anything but red is beyond me.)<br /><br />Every B movie has a tipping point that makes it a fun time (Hey it's a lesbian shower scene, OMG that guy just ate is own eyeballs) or not so fun (Did they just call those forty something overweight guys wearing coveralls and bicycle helmets Navy Seals?) Chupacabra falls into the not so fun B movie side with a thud.

People are being too hard on the film. Sometimes we should just sit back and enjoy the story without attempting to "review" it.<br /><br />The whole thing comes together when Hackman decides not to pull the trigger but his target still goes down. Then the fun begins as everyone about him also "go down".<br /><br />Just think JFK and all the people associated in any way with his assassination, who's lives ended abruptly and in questionable ways and you'll appreciate what is implied in this film.<br /><br />I think it's an excellent interpretation of what may well have occurred. Though the EXACT story line my not have been followed (hindsight here after reading Jim Maars "Crossfire") but it's what is implied that is of interest.<br /><br />I'd love to get a copy of it to view it again. In light of what is known today, The Domino Principle is right on.

There's only 2 reasons I watch this show...I invested the time already in previous episodes and Col Tigh. For all you supposed Sci-Fi fans out there who love the new BSG, give me a break! Go read some classic Sci-Fi novels by the true greats or watch some of the milestone films and TV shows from days gone by and you'll see what hacks these BSG writers are. Their only gimmick is "who is the fifth cylon". Poor writing and really, truly no sense of character development. If Adama resigns or tries to take power or cries again or discovers the inner father he should have been one more time...ahhhhh! And Roslin is as annoying a character that's ever been put aboard a starship. Out the airlock with her. I could care less if it's six more months before they conclude. These wannabe writers were out of tricks in season one. If you don't know that, you just don't know writing.

I am a fan of animal movies. If you can take a plot and put animals as the main actors you will usually win me over. Homeward Bound did just this. They took a plot that has been as old as time and put a new spin to it. It was a complete success. It is very much an archetypal movie. You have the obi-wan of the group(shadow) who is wise and logical, you have the lovable but impetuous and untrusting Chance, and the prissy princess who thinks that she should be pampered and praised. These three personalities bounce off of each other very well. I also like how they made Chance and Sassy such dynamic characters, and they did not overdue it. Most people say that it cannot be good because it is too much of a kids film. What they are forgetting, however, is that it is supposed to be a kids film, and this still does not take away from the acual movie. This is a good movie to watch when you are bored and you just want to watch a movie. It is a Disney movie without the cartoons, an air bud movie with a better plot. I would, without a doubt, advise you to watch it.

Just like all of Mel Brooks' other comedies, Men in Tights is hilarious. But in seeing this as an outrageous comedy, I think many fail to realize that the reason the movie is so funny is that the characters themselves are acted so well. Elwes is the well-spoken former British noble, Lewis is an eternally annoyed king (I hope it's worth all the NOOOOOOIIIISE!), DeLuise is a FANTASTIC godfather, Roger Rees is a worried and cynical sheriff.... The actors and actresses are so loyal to their parts that the jokes flow forth with ease. Yes, we've seen this kind of comedy before, but the only comedy to achieve better character development, in my opinion, is The Big Lebowski. Very very funny.

This film looked interesting; I'd read the book a number of years ago and it informed me that the feature followed the plot outline pretty tightly.<br /><br />Started watching it and almost from the outset it failed to live up to expectations. In fact, I didn't bother watching the whole thing... utter drivel - bad performances, bad acting and instantly dislikeable characters - that was the point of the film, I guess.<br /><br />Watching this film left a bad taste in the mouth and put me on a downer for the remainder of my weekend.<br /><br />Do not bother with this feature.

A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.<br /><br />I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.<br /><br />With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.<br /><br />I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.<br /><br />I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.<br /><br />If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.

This is movie is garbage, it looked really funny on the previews but I didn't laugh once through the whole movie. Do yourself a big favor and don't waste your money on this, don't waste anyone's money on this. I gave it a 1/10 believe me I would have given it less if I could have. I'm a 15 year old guy and I thought it was trash if you wanna see a good movie go out and see Jay and Silent Bob strike back.

At first glance I expected this film to be crappy because I thought the plot would be so excessively feminist. But I was wrong. As you maybe have read in earlier published comments, I agree in that the feminist part in this film does not bother. I never had the idea that the main character was exaggerating her position as a woman. It's like Guzman is presented as somebody with a spine, this in contrast to her classmates. So I was surprised by the story, in fact, I thought it was quite good, except for the predictable end. Maybe it would've been a better idea to give the plot a radical twist, so that the viewer is somewhat more surprised.<br /><br />In addition, I'd like to say that Rodriguez earned her respect by the way she put away her character. I can't really explain why, but especially in the love scenes she convinced me. It just looked real I think.<br /><br />I gave it a 7 out of 10, merely because of the dull last half hour.