Datasets:

zheng438

/

imdb-truncated

like 0

"The Lion King" is without a doubt my favorite Disney movie of all time, so I figured maybe I should give the sequels a chance and I did. Lion King 1 1/2 was pretty good and had it's good laughs and fun with Timon and Pumba. Only problem, I feel sometimes no explanations are needed because they can create plot holes and just the feeling of wanting your own explanation. Well, I would highly recommend this movie for lion King fans or just a night with the family. It's a fun flick with the same laughs and lovable characters as the first. So, hopefully, I'll get the same with the third installment to the Lion King series. Sit back and just think Hakuna Matata! It means no worries! <br /><br />8/10

Yes, this was pure unbelievable condescending babble. We know that the French often have a skewed idea of the USA, it's puritanism and views towards sex. As an American (Hoosier) who lives in France, I have ample opportunity to observe these attitudes. And while some of these preconceived notions may be true, NOT ONE ELEMENT of the midwestern town portrayed in this film rang real. A man who has never had sex because he was told in high school 20 years prior that his penis is too big? Where in the world would you find that? A juke box in a bar that plays only vintage bluegrass? A town with maybe 16 people less than two hours away from Chicago, but with no major gas station, no Tvs in the home, no McDonalds, no kids... A population that knows each other's intimate details yet relentlessly gets together like one big family that hates each other. The adult males plant whoopee cushions at the local cafe, have farms but don't harvest, kill the guy they don't like in front of everyone and seem to get away with it, and all with equal emotion? The liberated French girl who will screw the 17 year old virgin boy because of her sexual generosity, the too much flesh guy who goes from getting off in cornfields by the mere breath of an Illinois breeze to helping deflower this same 17 year old farm boy? HELP! I am so baffled and astounded by the absurdity of this film that I am not expressing clearly how ridiculous it is. Go see it for the A-to-Z primer on what to avoid. Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin it for you!

I say 'I'd figure' in that line because, frankly, I've not seen a Hal Hartley movie until now. It's not that I haven't heard of him though, as he was seen as one of those small NY filmmakers (when I say small I mean even smaller than Jim Jarmusch), who made ultra-personal projects on limited budgets. In an ironic way, much as with Pasolini's Salo, though in a slightly different context, Fay Grim interests me to see some of Hartley's more acclaimed features, because there seems to be at least present some semblance of talent behind it, as if Hartley *could* be a very good filmmaker who may be so good he's just taken a big experimental blunder. Or, on the other hand, he could just be someone far too impressed with his own idiosyncrasies and would-be Godard-like cinematic collisions.<br /><br />I can't quite explain the story, which may or may not be a problem I suppose, however it's not really in due to not having seen the film that preceded Fay Grim, Henry Fool. I think even if I had that experience it wouldn't make too much of a difference based on the final results. There's a lot of international espionage, a double plot wrapped inside of another that's fallen through the fake pockets of the title character, played in an aloof way by Parker Posey (not sure if that's good or bad either, maybe both), and also involving a CIA operative (Jeff Goldblum, as usual a solid presence amid the mania, even conjuring some laughs), not to mention an orgy-laden picture box, and author Henry Fool. It's not that the script is totally impenetrable, however much it goes into over-extended loopholes just for the sake of it, because there are some touches of witty or affectingly strange dialog.<br /><br />Quite simply, the direction just sucks. Harltey is in love with the Third Man, which is fine, but he imposes a consistently headache inducing style of everything being tilted in angle, with characters having to get into frame equally oddly. Not since Battlefield Earth, in fact, has a director come off so annoyingly in trying to make the unnecessary choice of titled angles for some bizarre dramatic effect, only this time Hartley isn't amid a cluster-f***, he's mostly responsible for it. This, along with the crazy wannabe Godard title-cards that pop in here and there, some a little amusing and some just totally stupid, and the montage segments all in still shots, AND a couple of moments involving action that almost call to mind Ed Wood, undermine any of the potential that is in the script, which is already fairly hard to decipher. In a way, it's fascinating to watch how bad this all goes, but a kind of fascination that comes in seeing the flip-side to total creative control on a sort-of small-scale story.<br /><br />But let it be known: you'll likely not come across a more wretchedly pretentious example of American independent film-making this year.

There are many kinds of reunion shows. One kind is where old actors are taken out of mothballs and set to recreate characters they haven't played for twenty or thirty years. These have mixed results. `Return to Mayberry', despite some silliness, was okay; `Return to Green Acres' as execrable (Eddie Albert used a word for the script I won't repeat here, but both it and the movie stink); `Rescue from Gilligan's Island' filled in a necessary gap in the story of the castaways, though the show itself was silly even from a `Gilligan's Island' viewpoint. In most cases, the scripts are weak; sometimes a silliness appears in the scripts that is too knowing – and in comedy it's nearly always fatal for the characters to know they're being funny. New characters are introduced who don't fit the mix. In the main, these reunion shows are pretty weak. A second sort of `reunion' show is the kind where the cast lays its past aside but sits around, telling stories, reminiscing, interspersed with flashbacks from the shows. Then there are movies based on the shows, which are rarely good; and movies based on the history of the show (`The Brady Bunch' has had both of these happen to it, with various results).<br /><br />`Return to the Batcave' uses nearly all the above, with a wonderfully twisted viewpoint, which makes it the best of the reunion shows, and has raised the bar for the others.<br /><br />Adam West and Burt Ward and summoned to a showing of the original Batmobile. While they are there, the car is stolen. <br /><br />The Adam West of the movie is a man demented. He called Jerry, his butler, `Alfred'. He opens a bust of Shakespeare in his apartment and reveals a hidden pole to slide down to the parking garage. He's obsessed with being a crime fighter, when in fact he's merely a washed up actor. When the Batmobile is stolen he not only believes it's his duty as a crime fighter to recover it, he drags and unwilling Burt Ward in as his assistant.<br /><br />The pursuit is largely loquacious, with West and Ward reminiscing about the old days. It is broken by `flashbacks' with actors playing West and Ward in the old days. The modern scenes and the `flashbacks' both have the wacky lack of reality the show maintained. There are also running gags that show West is able to make fun of himself: in Ward's book about his time on the show, he spoke frankly about West's libido and also his being a skinflint (West makes Ward pay for everything in their pursuit, down to tips and bus fare). The clues they follow, the characters they meet (even in flashback) all fit the mentality of the old series, and there are several homages, including a fist fight with written sound effects.<br /><br />The whole thing is extremely funny and done with great panache. There are also cameos by Julie Newmar (looking like she's had one facelift too many) and Frank Gorshin, reminding us why he has such a cult following. Gorshin will be the Riddler when Jim Carey, his obvious successor, is long forgotten. The movie builds to a fairly obvious but funny climax.<br /><br />This show is a model for reunion shows – unfortunately, there are few that can fit the pattern. This show had actors replaying their old characters; young actors playing a movie about the making of the show; the actors West and Ward reminiscing; and a modern-day movie with the real Adam West playing the demented Adam West. It has everything. If you loved the old show, this is the stopper on the bottle.

Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.<br /><br />Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.<br /><br />There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)<br /><br />Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.<br /><br />Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.

It ran from 1959-1973. Its more than its longevity that says a lot for this series. Its also that it survived changes in fashion and taste from the 50's , psychedelic 60's and remained popular in the 70's.<br /><br />I remember repeats of this series. It was a successful combination of all its elements from stories, cast and productions that made it exceptional. Lorne Green had his defining iconic character from this series. Its appeal was across generations. All members of the family could enjoy this. It balanced morality with violence, humour with seriousness. A cartoon series was made as a spin off from this as a result of its impact. The shame is that this series is no longer repeated and many will not know its significance.

This is one of the most god-awful movies ever. Shaq better just stick to basketball. This movie took away apart of my life I will never have back. I will make fun of this movie until I die, and then some. It is so horrible it is not even funny. MST3000 would have a blast with this one.

Rarely do I see a film that I am totally engrossed with; this was one of them. It had good acting, dialogue, plot, and the scenery was beautiful. I laughed out loud many times, especially the scene dealing with the kitchen raid. The slapstick comedy performed by the lunkhead hired hand had me one the floor, but I admit that I am a sucker for slapstick. The story dealt with a group of people in their 30's coming back to a summer camp that they had attended 20 years previously. It was a farewell week of camping, as the place would be closed down permanently at the end of the season. As adults the camp looked different, and they felt differently about it and each other. I recommend this funny, moving movie to all.<br /><br />

This stalk and slash turkey manages to bring nothing new to an increasingly stale genre. A masked killer stalks young, pert girls and slaughters them in a variety of gruesome ways, none of which are particularly inventive.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not clever, and it's not funny. So what was the point of it?

This is a warm, funny film, in much the same vein as the works of Almodovar. Sure it has a 10 year old boy sucking milk from breasts, but the style is so playful that I can't understand at all those readers who found it sick or perverted (but would I be willing to let my 10-year old son play the part? Not so sure!). <br /><br />Spanish cinema is often quite sexual, but in a very open and healthy way that leaves the viewer without any sense of voyeurism or kink. I think that we if we northern European types had the same attitude, we'd be much better off as a result.<br /><br />This liberal attitude is also seen in the hilarious 'Fartman Maurice' character. As his lover says to him: 'Most people are embarrassed about farting. You turn it into an art form.'

Wow baby, this is indeed some fine Asian horror/gore, and a crazy outlandish movie. This is a Japanese splatterfest that reminded me a little of Tetsuo, except in this case with all the blood and guts, there is a bizarre love story. It's hard to imagine how they even dreamed up this visually stunning movie, with some unique alien creatures that infect humans as parasites, turning them into part machine or I guess cyborgs. The only thing wrong with these creatures after they take over a human, is they need to kill each other and eat the other. hmmm, yum yum. This would probably be called industrial splatter or something like that, with a superb soundtrack to add to all the fun. The movie also borrows a little from Carpenter's "The Thing" in creature design and effects. I would put this in the must-have category for gorehounds, as there is non-stop carnage and some very fine gore. And a must-have for stoners, because you don't even need to read the sub-titles, the visual images alone are enough of a mind trip. The design of the little creatures that inhabit the human body like a fetus reminded me a little of Frank Henenlotter's movies, which is another homage to some excellent gore films with a sense of humour. "Meatball Machine" is great fun for gorehounds, there is no doubt about it, and I simply loved it.

'The Luzhin Defence' is a movie worthy of anyone's time. it is a brooding, intense film, and kept my attention the entire time. John Turturro is absolutely stunning in his portrayal of a tender, eccentric chess Grandmaster, and Emily Watson is spell-binding as the gentle but rebellious daughter of a highly respected Russian family. The chemistry between Watson and Turturro on screen is obvious from the moment their characters meet in the story. All in all, this movie is one of the best in-depth looks at the life of a chess Grandmaster, and Turturro and Watson add a whole non-mainstream, non-cliche feel to the film. Most people will come out of the theater thinking, and feeling somewhat touched by this brilliant look at the most unlikely of love stories.

"Sky Captain" may be considered an homage to comic books, pulp adventures and movie serials but it contains little of the magic of some of the best from those genres. One contributor says that enjoyment of the film depends on whether or not one recognizes the films influences. I don't think this is at all true. One's expectations of the films,fiction and serials that "Captain" pays tribute to were entirely different. Especially so for those who experienced those entertainments when they were children. This film is almost completely devoid of the charm and magnetic attraction of those. Of course we know the leads will get into and out of scrapes but there has to be some tension and drama. Toward the climax of "Captain" Law and Paltrow have ten minutes to prevent catastrophe and by the time they get down to five minutes they are walking not running toward their goal. They take time out for long looks and unnecessary conversation and the contemplation of a fallen foe with 30 seconds left to tragedy. Of course one expects certain conventions to be included but a good director would have kept up some sense of urgency.<br /><br />One doesn't expect films like this to necessarily "make sense". One does expect them to be fun, thrilling and to have some sense of interior logic. "Captain" has almost none. Remember when Law and Paltrow are being pursued by the winged creatures and they reach a huge chasm which they cross via a log bridge? Well how come they are perfectly safe from those creatures when they reach the other side? They can FLY!!! The chasm itself means nothing to them. The bridge is unnecessary for them so where is the escape? If the land across the chasm is 'forbidden' to the flying creatures the film made no effort to let us know how or why or even if.<br /><br />I know that Paltrow and Law (both of whom have given fine performances in the past) were playing "types" but both were pretty flat. Only Giovanni Ribisi (who showed himself capable of great nuance here) and Angelina Jolie seemed to give any "oomph" to their roles although Omid Djalili seemed like he could have handled a little more if he'd only been given the chance. He did a pretty good job anyway considering how he was basically wasted.<br /><br />The film had a great 'look' but there are so many ways in which CGI distracts. CGI works best when it is used for the fantastical, when it is used to create creatures who don't exist in nature or for scientific or magical spectacular. When it is used to substitute for natural locations it disappoints. There is no real sense of wonder. A CGI mountain doesn't have any of the stateliness or sense of awe and foreboding that a real mountain does. I know that the design of this film was quite deliberate and it wasn't necessarily supposed to LOOK real but shouldn't it FEEL that way? It just didn't. <br /><br />As for the weak and clichéd script...homage is no excuse. Even so, had the movie had some thrills and dramatic tension it might still have been enjoyable. "The Last Samurai" was as predictable as the days of the week and I am no fan of Tom Cruise but it had everything that "Captain" didn't most notably it drew the viewer into its world and made us accept its rules and way of being in a way that "Sky Captain" most definitely did not.<br /><br />I'd like to see a similar approach taken for films about comic book heroes of the 30's and 40's. The original (Jay Garrick) Flash or Green Lantern (Alan Scott) come to mind as being ripe for such treatment. Maybe the better, more well known and fully realized characters that those character are would make for a much better film. It would be hard to be worse.

Seeing as the vote average was pretty low, and the fact that the clerk in the video store thought it was "just OK", I didn't have much expectations when renting this film.<br /><br />But contrary to the above, I enjoyed it a lot. This is a charming movie. It didn't need to grow on me, I enjoyed it from the beginning. Mel Brooks gives a great performance as the lead character, I think somewhat different from his usual persona in his movies.<br /><br />There's not a lot of knockout jokes or something like that, but there are some rather hilarious scenes, and overall this is a very enjoyable and very easy to watch film.<br /><br />Very recommended.

Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side.

If you want to know what kind of music white people listened to in 1974, this is the movie for you. But you'll have to listen to a lot of flutes and violins, too (see my remarks on My Girl 1 for the reference).<br /><br />Indulgent admission: I approached My Girl 2 with cynicism and annoyance, having just viewed its predecessor. But as an adoptee preparing to finally set upon a search for my birthmother, My Girl 2 made me look, with its theme of searching for mother.<br /><br />Put another way, anything I liked about My Girl 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with My Girl 2, but relating to a protagonist who asks, like so many adoptees, "who's my mama"? And if there are home movies of my mom in an acting troupe, I'll be sure to make my own movie about it.<br /><br />People are listless. Movies should not be listless. My Girl 2 (like My Girl 1) is just...listless.<br /><br />Avoid unless you're a complete sap who's comforted by a series of small annoyances.

This is quite possibly the worst Christmas film ever. The plot is virtually non-existent, the acting (Affleck in particular) is poor at best. Ben Affleck fans will probably defend this film but deep down they must agree. As far as I could gather the plot consisted of Ben Affleck, a millionaire salesman, is told by a shrink to go to a place that reminds him of his childhood and burn a list of things he wanted to forget from his childhood. On doing this he ends up paying the family currently living in the house to be his family for Christmas... and that is it. The film goes on and eventually he gets together with the daughter of the family.... blah blah blah.

What was this supposed to be? A remake of Fisher King? Why do we care about Sandler's character? What a slow, dreary, boring, who-gives-a-damn-about-these-people movie!!! Just simply painful to sit through, I turned it off before it was over. It's so obvious that Cheadle needs help as much as Sandler; like I said: can you say "Fisher King"? And how does this psychotic character function in his daily life? We aren't supposed to think that deeply, I guess. Why does Cheadle continue to give Sandler a chance to turn violent on him? If they were such good friends, how did they grow apart? If Cheadle is so in control, why does he keep seeking the advice of the shrink on the street? We are never told. That's why Fisher King was a better film on so many levels and why this just sucks. Nearly 8 out of 10 average score? I don't agree. At all. Even the top films are lucky to get such a high average rating, and this crap doesn't deserve to be in the same universe with them.

I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 1982 & loved it then. About 4 years later I had the privilege of seeing Luciano Pavarotti sing at the Metropolitan Opera house in New York (in Tosca) so seeing the ending of this film reminds me very much of that great night. What's not to like about this film? The music is brilliant and Pavarotti (Fini) was at his best and still looked great. The story is actually very funny in parts & the 'food fight' scene is still one of the funniest I have ever seen. The hot air balloon flight over the Napa valley was beautiful & so was the song he sang "If we were in love" (one of the few times Pavarotti sang in English). And hearing the duet of Santa Lucia gorgeous. Get real folks, this was a film about an opera singer called Georgio Fini who just happened to be played by Pavarotti. Kathryn Harrold & Eddie Albert were excellent in their supporting roles.<br /><br />I am VERY glad that I still have this almost worn out VHS tape of this movie but I would love this to be released on DVD especially now that Pavarotti is no longer with us because I think this includes the best performance of Nessun Dorma sung by him still on film today!

Like watching a neighbor's summer camp home movies, "Indian Summer" is a sleep inducing bore. Eight alumni campers are barely introduced, when unbelievably boring flashbacks begin for characters we know nothing about. Fine actors, Alan Arkin, and Bill Paxton are totally wasted in this film. One camper's observation that "everything seems so much smaller than I remember it" is repeated at least ten times, enough to make you squirm. The anticipated pranks are neither funny or original, unless you think that short sheeting is a real "howler". This movie was a great disappointment considering the ample talent involved. "Indian Summer" did not make me homesick, just sick. - MERK

This was a great book and the possibilities for a truly great film were definitely there. But the casting decisions completely wrecked the movie. Hanks is a great actor to be sure, but lacks the smarmy, morally ambivalent characteristics needed for the lead role. Jeff Daniels would have been my choice.<br /><br />Putting Melanie Griffiths in, for eye candy reasons, is understandable, but again, she did not portray the depth or ambivalence, so need to pull this off.<br /><br />This movie is a great example of how every decision, even those early on in the movie production can make or break a file.

This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' "Silly Love Songs" is worthy of #1 status in America.

I saw Brother's Shadow at the Tribeca Film Festival and loved it! Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen are great as father and son. The film follows Scott Cohen from parole in Alaska back to his family in Brooklyn. He shows up there because his brother has died, and he embarks on a journey to slowly repair his estranged relationships with his brother's wife and child and his father who has never forgiven him for being the black sheep of the family. The story takes us deep into the hearts and minds of this family and allows you to more deeply understand the complexity of their lives. Also, the imagery of the woodworking business and the Brooklyn backdrop sets the tone for this rich and revealing family portrait.

The best film about marriage and family. This is a very interesting reflections to the couples that will be come to the dangerous and paradoxical fascinating world of marriage and family. This decision could be the better or the worst in our lives and the life of our kids. The real intrusion or help of 'friends' -or executioner if we leave-. The real role of families: they can help or they can destroy us. The mad priest who possibly is not much mad telling what could happen according the statistics and the reality. A couple who thinks in a 'special' marriage, live a painful story in their future own history.<br /><br />Who likes contract marriage? Nobody, after the priest tells their own history… if they leave the future in another hands, if they don't know WHAT is the marriage. That the problems are true, that the life demand a real engage, guaranties, from each one. That the real victims of the divorce are kids, with real name –Andrea in the film- or names. That the abortion is only an easy exit: sadness, regrets and unhappiness will be there after abortion. That the state and social security thinks every time less in a real problems of the families. The gossip of the 'friends', the infidelity because of weakness and desperation of Steffania because Tomasso lives his life as if he were alone.<br /><br />Maybe someone could think that this film is a pessimistic film, but not. Steffania and Tomasso, in the deep of their hearts, they like a beautiful marriage and family, if not, Why they like marriage? A truly and beautiful marriage depends only of the couple: of each one of their decisions, of each one actions in their lives. The family could be a place where each one feel loved because being his or her, only by existing. The screenplay is wonderful. The performances are great: Steffania and Tomasso, ¡the almost cynical priest! An excellent direction and script. The colors and the management of the cameras, superb.

Wow. The only people reviewing this positively are the Carpenter apologists. I know a lot of those. The guys that'll watch John Carpenter squat on celluloid and pinch out a movie and proclaim it a masterwork of horror. This "movie" is utter crap. It looks and sounds like a porno (good lord, the soundtrack is awful...), and has sub-par porn acting, which is shocking, because normally Ron Perlman is really a very good actor. I honestly have no idea what Carpenter was thinking when making this. Most likely "Beans, beans, beans.." until somebody fed him and rolled him up into a blanket for the day... They say nothing about the abortion debate whatsoever, when they could have had a very interesting central theme (how do religious zealot anti-abortionists feel when it's the devil's baby?) but instead they chose to have Ron Perlman and his terribly acted kids kill a bunch of people and have the horribly cast doctors try to calm the hysterically bad pregnant girl. Not a single person from this episode or what have you should come away unscathed. It's just awful. Like, Plan 9 From Outerspace awful. Like, good god please would somebody turn it off before I soil myself awful. Try watching this and The Thing in the same day and your mind will implode.

HORRID!!<br /><br />The special effects make the TV version of "Tremors" look real!<br /><br />No one in the cast can act.<br /><br />Kind of like the '62 "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" meets the cartoon ocean going electric eel cartoons.

Pretty awful but watchable and entertaining. It's the same old story (if you've lived through the 80s). Vietnam vets fight together as buddies against injustice back in the States. A-Team meets Death Wish, my favorite!<br /><br />Time goes on, the soldiers go home, and years later a friend is in trouble. No, wait -- in fact, the friend is dead and it is his dad that's in trouble. Our first hero, Joey, is killed by an exceedingly horrifying (super pointy) meat tenderizer as he tries to defend his father's small store from the local "protection" gang despite being wheelchair bound from the war. Desperate for help, the father talks to Sarge, the leader of Joey's old unit from Vietnam, when Sarge shows up for the funeral.<br /><br />Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the old gang saddles up for the city. You can pretty much imagine most of the rest of the movie.<br /><br />The one thing that drove me crazy is that Sarge keeps haranguing his men about planning, and about how they're really good at what they do when they plan ahead. But Joey wouldn't have been put in a wheelchair by a gunshot in Vietnam in the first place if the unit hadn't been messing around! Then when things are going really well in the city as they battle the gangs, they do it again. For no reason at all, they completely bypass their plan and try to nail the gang without everyone being present. Phh!!!! I raise my hands in disgust. Foolishness!<br /><br />There is also a suspicious moment when all present members of the unit make sure to try out the heroin they snatch from the gang to make sure it's real. EVERY single one of them. Hmm....<br /><br />What are you going to do? Keep watching, I guess. The movie isn't too horrible to watch, but it IS a tease. There are all these climactic moments when nothing actually winds up happening. The most dramatic things that happen are those at the beginning of the movie -- the explosives in Vietnam, Joey's death battle, and the gang brutally kicking an innocent teddy bear aside (poor Teddy!).<br /><br />I guess my main beef with this movie is that I feel let down by it. Even the confusing subplots with "mystery helpers" and their bizarrely cross-purpose motives wasn't enough to save it at the end. But someday maybe it'll all come right and they'll make a sequel. Ha ha ha ha!!!

This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his "I'll be back line" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did.

What the hell of a D-Movie was that? Bad acting, bad special effects and the worst dialogues/storyline i ever came across. The only cool thing here was Coolio, who had a nice cameo as a freaked out cop. However, the rest of the film is awful and boring. It's not even so bad, you can laugh about it. Just plain crap. And whoever compares this to the Evil Dead Series might as well compare Tomb Raider to Indiana Jones (well, ok, at least there was Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider)! 1 out of 10

First of all, I was expecting "Caged Heat" to be along the same lines as "Ilsa, The Wicked Warden". Boy, was I wrong! In no way is this film 70s exploitation, "chix in chains", or "women in prison". Sure, the plot consists of a bunch of women in prison, who wear street clothes btw (quite comical), but NOTHING happens.<br /><br />There aren't strong rivalries, no one tries to seduce the warden or doctor in order to try and escape, and no inmates make out. There are 2 shower scenes, that I suspect is just recycled footage, but no fights breaks out / no one is seduced here - or anywhere for that matter! Aside from the lack of plot, unconvincing, unsympathetic, and flat characters, a couple of inmates that do manage to escape actually return to the prison in order to "free" their fellow inmates??!!<br /><br />PUH-LEASE, the movie should have just ended off with the escapees riding off into the sunset...as opposed to letting this mess continue!<br /><br />I feel scammed.

Paul Reiser steps away from the standup comedy spotlight to write a warmly humorous and gently tender story about family - what we see and what we don't see, what we expect and what surprises us. THE THING ABOUT MY FOLKS doesn't set any new standards for film, but it is a fine little story well told that reminds us about the significant bonds that family represents.<br /><br />Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) has been a workaholic, at times pushing his wife Muriel (Olympia Dukakis), his daughters (Mackenzie Connolly and Lydia Jordan), and his son Ben (Paul Reiser) into the background. One day Muriel leaves a note that after years of marriage she is leaving! Her daughters, along with Ben's wife Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) immediately begin the search for her whereabouts, leaving the confused and hurt and disgruntle Sam to sort things out on a road trip with son Ben. The road trip becomes a time for the two men to learn who each other is and what they each mean to their status as father and son and as family members. Sam relaxes for the first time in his life and introduces the now workaholic Ben to the pleasures and fun of living. The trip comes to an end with a phone call about the whereabouts of Muriel and why she left and the regrouping of the wiser family draws the story's warm ending. All is not what it seemed: it's better and, well, different.<br /><br />Falk and Reiser play off each other like the pros they are, but in many ways the film belongs to the brief moments when Olympia Dukakis is on screen, reminding us that she is one of our strongest matriarchs on film. Well worth viewing. Grady Harp

Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).<br /><br />I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.<br /><br />Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.

<br /><br />I take issue with the other reviewer's comments for the simple reason that this is a MYSTERY FILM, not a supernatural one! It is not the only film to have a seemingly "supernatural" explanation ("vampires"), but turns out to be a very mundance one.<br /><br />Other films that come to mind are Edgar Wallace's "Before Dawn" and the (more famous) "Mark of the Vampire". <br /><br />The film does a WONDERFUL job in creating a very "spooky atmosphere", similar DRACULA, when Renfield meets the Count on the staircase of his castle, or in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, when the two people look thru the windows of the castle ruins and see a "corpse" playing an organ, while Luna descends using wings! VERY surreal!<br /><br />If one likes these (often silent) atmospheric touches, THIS film is a MUST!<br /><br />Norm Vogel

Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.<br /><br />It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard.

James Dickey is a wonderfully descriptive author. When one reads "Deliverance", one is instantly transported into the lush backwoods of the Deep South. When one watches John Boorman's film version of the book, one realizes just how accurately he captures the essence of the book. The camera is as descriptive as the narration. The characters are fully realized, and the portrayals are fantastic. I first saw this movie in 1992, after my freshman year of college. I was in a phase where I was watching movies that were all released within a couple of years of my birth in 1973. Among them were "Patton", "Papillon", and "All the President's Men"; fine films, all of them. This one was easily the class of the group. That says a lot.

Let me say first that this show was top tier when John Ritter was there. Upon his death, the show did drop off a bit, but the producers didn't give up on the show, adding James Garner and David Spade to the regular cast from 2003 to 2005.<br /><br />The show centers around the Hennessy family, Paul (John Ritter, may he rest in peace), his wife Cate (Katey Sagal), their daughters Bridget (Kaley Cuoco), Kerry (Amy Davidson), and their son, Rory (Martin Spanjers). When Ritter was on the show, I would shriek in laughter (and proud to admit it, I am), but now that he's gone, I'll only laugh a little with the occasional hearty laugh. I'm very glad that I fell for this show's trance after Ritter's untimely death, because it made the eps with Ritter so much better.<br /><br />Ritter's character is just so well acted and well rounded, that you can't help but love him. He is always bossing the girls around about dating, but he really wants them to be happy. It's the ultimate daddy hates boyfriend entertainment.<br /><br />Katey Sagal is great as well, and she too is a likable character. After Ritter's death, her character provides such good influence and strength for not only her kids, but I believe Sagal has shaped the lives of Cuoco, Davidson, and Spanjers, because she and Ritter had been friends for a long time.<br /><br />The funniest person on the show would have to be Bridget Hennessy, played by Kaley Cuoco. She is the ultimate blonde: gorgeous, slow, dim-witted, yet she is a smart person. She is off the wall hilarious with her innocent 'blonde' humor and how conceited she is.<br /><br />Amy Davidson can get a tad annoying as Kerry, but that's the purpose of her character. The only fault of the show is that the show never really gives Kerry anything to be happy about. She's always after Bridget, and her character feels like it's just thrown in there.<br /><br />Martin Spanjers as the lone Hennessy son is hysterical, and when Ritter is on the show, he's mostly comic material. Upon the death of Ritter, the show does provide some story lines for Rory.<br /><br />David Spade and James Garner are all nothing but laughs, with the occasional side story for C.J., Spade's character. Garner plays Cate's father, as a bit of background information.<br /><br />All in all, I give this show a great review because it is a great show that had a tragic event happen that crippled it. You'll enjoy it.<br /><br />9/10 --spy

When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage

"Cut" is a film about some film students making a film. It's very much in the "Scream" mold, an ironic, self-referential horror flick which, for me at least, falls down because for all its irony, it's still just a bad horror film, same as the films its referring to.<br /><br />But it was not without its charms. Well, one charm anyway. Molly Ringwald was fantastic as the spoilt, bitchy American actress hating every minute of working with the amateur Australian film crew. She was so convincing that its tempting to believe it wasn't an act, although everyone involved with "Cut" says she was lovely to work with. :-)<br /><br />Seriously, every scene of her pouting, sulking or snapping was great. Everyone else, however, wavered between being OK and being terribly wooden.<br /><br />Anyway, "Cut" has some laughs, a few buckets of gore (some of it surprisingly gruesome), and ultimately is.. just another bad horror film.

I never heard of this film til it played as part of a Robert Mitchum retrospective at the National Film Theatre in London. Almost 60 years on the cast list looked tasty to say the least with seven names - in addition to top-billed Mitchum - in the public domain; Charles McGraw, not long off The Killers, Barbara Bel Geddes, long before Dallas and arguably still better known as the daughter of Theatre Set Designer Norman, Walter Brennan, who needed no introduction, Frank Faylen, the sadistic male nurse in The Lost Weekend and the much nicer small-town mensch in It's A Wonderful Life, Robert Preston still a decade away from Harold Hill in The Music Man with Tom Tully and Phyllis Thaxter making up the numbers. Alas, most of them were wasting their time. I looked in vain for any 'signature' scenes given that it was Robert Wise on bullhorn. By this time he'd made around a half dozen films and had still to find a style. The story is our old friend the range war and Mitchum must have thought it was barely a cut above the Hopalong Cassidy oaters on which he'd cut his teeth. There are no new twists - if you don't count the unbelievable scene when Mitchum accuses Preston of sleeping with Thaxter to gain information about her father's plans to move his cattle. This is perfectly true but how did Mitchum KNOW? We've seen or heard nothing to indicate how he discovered it. On balance not a lot to be said for this.

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

I watched this last night on TV (HBO). I have to admit, that the tension in this movie was unsurpassed by most other FN era movies. I loved the way Chip would be all calm one moment and then VIOLENT the very next moment. It was classic. Ahh yes. The dames, the villians, the cigars and thuggish cops! It has it all. This movie delivered all the goods to me. I especially loved the way they mixed communism into the plot, very common for this era of movie. Very daring also since blacklisting was popular in those days. I rate this movie one of the best I have seen in the FN genre!

I don't usually write a comment when there are so many others but this time I feel I have to. I have spoken of taste in another review, saying it's all in the eye of the beholder but when it comes to this film, if you like it, it simply means you have bad taste.<br /><br />I love films. I loved "Isle of the Dead" which is pretty much an unknown B&W film. I even liked "Scream" and "Scary Movie" I liked these films because they have, if not a lot, at least something good about them. I appreciate 99.9% of the films I've seen because they tell a story which I haven't heard before, and most directors only make films with a good storyline. Throughout this film I was thinking "Where is this going?" (even near the end) "Where did they get these awful actors from"? "Was that supposed to be a joke?" and suchlike. With the obvious twist looming I was sceptical, but hoped it would perhaps "make" the film and prove I hadn't wasted my time. I was sadly mistaken. The storyline was bad to begin with and the twist actually ruined any glimmer of hope there was. Here's a rundown: Storyline – much like the first film, which was alright, this one is slow and sparse with no audience relation to the characters or the situations. The situations are cringeworthy and shallow and completely boring and predictable. The twist was terrible, it didn't make me feel a thing, like excitement or WOW. Just "My GOD." There was nothing in the bulk of the film that you could look back to and think "Oooo wasn't that clever" because it wasn't. In "Fight Club" there are flashbacks at the end showing bits where Tyler's true identity was cryptically shown, and when you watched it again you saw more, it really was a work of genius, how it was written, laid out and directed. This was a meaningless attempt at an awesome twist. I think it was "wild things" that had like a pretty poor double twist and I still liked the film because the rest was OK and it wasn't trying too hard to be a big twist. Its like the CI2 writer thought it was gonna be the best twist ever. But really, its just a bad story with a bad twist dumped on the end. The film ended almost immediately afterward, with the whole film void by Sebastian's whole story build up meaning nothing and a horrible half forced, paedophilic ending with a particularly young and innocent acting girl. Acting – the actors in this film are appalling. Almost as bad a "Sunset Beach." - Extremely corny and badly performed. It's not even so bad it's good like "Hunk". The worst acting I thought came from Amy Adams who played Kathryn, it was a rigid, pathetic and badly thought out performance by her. Robin Dunne was also poor. I haven't seen "American Psycho II" yet, but no doubt his laid back "cool" style has ruined that film also.<br /><br />I can't even say it is a good film for teens, as its not. If my son or daughter liked this film I'd be ashamed. But they wouldn't anyway, as they would take into consideration all the things that make a good film, which this film has none of. Really. I'm disappointed that some have said "you might not be in the age bracket for this film, and so dislike it" I like all the films now that I liked as a teen and had very good taste. Also, do you really think that when you reach 20+ you suddenly don't like any teenish story lines? No. I liked "Mean Girls" and other generic teen films, and watch "Beverly Hills 90210" all the time. There's no excuse for poor directing, acting and screenplay I'm afraid. Besides, I was 16/17 when I first watched it. If anything, being older just makes you a better judge of a terrible film. I can't believe anyone can give it 10/10 either, one of my favourite films is "Memento" and I gave it 9 as I know there can be better. It is a shame for this site that people do that, give 10s flippantly, or don't get the films/show, and so give it 2.<br /><br />Anyone who liked this film really should vary their taste, and perhaps their lives, and with this realise that this is the worst film EVER made. (worse than "Loch Ness")<br /><br />If you aren't a teenager with bad taste, or simply don't have bad taste you will absolutely hate this film.

First one was much better, I had enjoyed it a lot. This one has not even produced a smile. The idea was showing how deep down can human kind fall, but in reference to the characters not the film-maker.

Michael Williams, who works for BBC, finds a somehow impressive Italian picture which gets mixed in the material of his ongoing task titled DIABOLICAL ART: A DOCUMENTARY. But since his wife's mysterious death her daughter, Emily, has been emotionally disturbed, so he goes Spoleto, where the problematic picture is, with her and her nanny, Jill. And there is a Countess, who is also a psychic, and she informs him that the picture was somehow made at the night that a young witch named Emilia was executed. Michael doesn't believe her story, but after that Emily has hysterical spasm and Jill is killed... This Italian film is, of course, almost innocently influenced by THE EXORCIST, but this one is much cheaper, much simpler,and in a sense, much dirtier. First of all, it should be said this film is full of confusion. For instance, the story shows Emily is a reincarnation of Emilia. But when Emily sees her in the flashbacks, she perceives her exclusively from a third-person's point of view. But if she is the reincarnation of Emilia, she should and must see the past from nothing but Emilia's point of view. Confusions of this kind, which the film has many, are almost exclusively based upon a problematic fact that the film is too cowardly, rather than ambivalent, to specify its own quasi-Freudian theme, namely, pre-adolescent girl's one-way incestuous wish. To make matters worse, this film also has characteristic problem (if not confusion); every character is too naive and helpless to be realistic and/or believable living human. Regarding Emily (or Emilia), she is after all a child, and one can say it is difficult to blame her mainly for her naiveness and helplessness. (And according to the Freudian theory, every girl wants to have her father's child(ren) in her own way. In this sense, Emily is not exclusively pathological; only her way of excluding other women from her father's love is problematically pathological. But, as I already mentioned, this film per se is too cowardly to be Freudian.) The problem is that adult characters are as childish and naive and helpless as Emily is. And because of this characteristic weakness even the psychic who can see almost everything cannot do anything down-to-earth, and because of the same weakness the very story of the film is ended in a badly escapist way. In addition, special effects of this film are incredibly cheap and laughable. Although Stelvio Cipriani's music is noteworthily beautiful (indeed this one is so good that it seems to be worth having it alone), the film as a whole is nothing but a cheap B-film which can disappoint even the 1970s'-Italian- horror-film-lovers.

Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it.

If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.<br /><br />Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. <br /><br />Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.

this dolph lundgren vehicle is a fun die hard throwback action flick, it isn't going to win any awards and its not very original but it delivers the goods you would want to see from a dolph lundgren movie. our man dolph is an ex soldier who is now a teacher at a tough inner city high school and when it gets taken over by terrorists its up to him to save the day. sure the script isn't going to win any Oscars its good fun and it has its fair share eplosive action. dolph lundgren gives a good enough performance but he comes alive more in the action scenes, and the rest of the cast are not the best actors but they hold it well. all in all detention is an enjoyable action flick, but youv'e seen it a million times before.

Almost the entire film takes place in a public bathhouse in China. There are no fancy sets, explosion or glamorous people--only fine writing, acting and direction (Hollywood, take note!).<br /><br />An estranged son returns home when he believes his father is dying. He is surprised to see that Dad looks fine and is going about running the family business as usual. In fact, he notices that his father and his retarded brother have really forged a close and caring relationship and it soon becomes obvious that he is out of the loop! Dad is very traditional and this visiting son is from the big city and doesn't really see the value of the old bathhouse. How their relationship changes and where the plot goes from there is exceptional and believable.<br /><br />I was happy to see that not every Chinese movie is an action picture (such as those starring Jet Li or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), as I don't particularly care for these frenetic films. The Shower as well as Springtime In A Small Town are two wonderful examples of good Chinese films about PEOPLE!

The Waiting Womans Ward of a large lying-in hospital, with all its joys and sorrows, is the place where LIFE BEGINS.<br /><br />This nearly forgotten drama is a fine little soap opera, replete with comedy and tragedy, all tied into the lives of the maternity staff and their patients. The frankness with which the subject matter is handled points up the movie's pre-Code status.<br /><br />Marvelous Aline MacMahon, as the sympathetic head nurse, is the calm center of the film, the rock around which all the currents flow. Able to handle any crisis or emergency, she is the mothers' best, sometimes last, friend. Surrounding MacMahon is a bevy of excellent costars: Loretta Young as a convicted murderess released from prison long enough to give birth; Eric Linden as her frightened young husband; brassy Glenda Farrell as a dame who hates children; sweet Clara Blandick as a very mature mother in for her sixth birthing; Preston Foster & Hale Hamilton as thoughtful, compassionate doctors and Frank McHugh as a comically frantic father-to-be.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize Bobs Watson as a wee tyke who wants to see the Stork; Paul Fix as a nervous husband who promises to behave like a `little soldier;' Gilbert Roland as a distraught Italian husband and Elizabeth Patterson as a snooty doctor's wife interested in adopting Farrell's son - all uncredited.<br /><br />There are a few absurdities in the plot - some of the mothers are obviously much too old; Farrell becomes blatantly drunk in the Ward but none of the staff seem to notice; an obviously psychotic patient is able to wander around at will - but this really only enhances the quirky entertainment value of the film and keeps things from becoming too serious.

This is a terrible film, and not one scene has an ounce of truthful emotion. The characters are uninflected, obviously drawn, predictable and the story line is obvious and typical Hollywood wish fulfillment.<br /><br />William Holden (so sad to see him in this role) was 55 when this film was made, but he's playing someone in his early 40s and looks like he's in his 60s. Kay Lenz was 20 and was scripted to find him irresistibly attractive. I think the dog they found by the side of the road was sexier and had more life than their erotic connection.<br /><br />Holden's character--the same age as Clint Eastwood when he directed this film, (not) coincidentally--is placed with obvious trappings of 60s pre-hippie cool: the bachelor pad, the swinging hi-fi, the lunches at Yamashiro. But the film is ridiculously uncool, a clanging claptrap of old fogies desperately wishing that the free spirits they saw on Sunset and in Laurel Canyon would find them and their big honkin' cars sexy.<br /><br />Ugh. Youth culture was never that desperate. And I shudder to think that Bill Holden was so desperate for youth that he took this embarrassing part.

i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10

I love the newer episodes with CJ and Grandad - I also liked the storyline with Kate falling for the principal. I want to find out what happens to Rory and Kerry and Bridget and the family next. I think CJ is very funny and I love his scenes with Grandad. I have always loved James Garner in everything he does, and it is a credit to his acting that I never think of him as James Garner or Rockford in this series and totally believe in him as Kate's Dad. This family is so real and funny. It was terribly sad when John Ritter / Paul Hennessey died, but as in real life these things happen and the way it was written into the series and dealt with was both funny and sad and always extremely sensitively and lovingly dealt with. But generally a very funny show with lots of laughs and fun.

"The Leap Years" is a movie adapted from an e-novella by Singapore writer Catherine Lim, which became the first Singapore novel/novella to be sold over the internet. The film had a tortuous post-production schedule: shot in early 2005, it was slated for release at the end of 2005, but only turn up eventually 3 years later, on the 29th February 2008, a leap year.<br /><br />Before I say anything, I must first admit I'm no fan of the romance genre, so I may be a little biased against this film - I watched it merely because it was a Singapore production, and that it's available for borrowing at my neighborhood library. Here's my two cents on the movie.<br /><br />Let's just start by saying that other than Qi Yu-wu's KS and Wong Li-Lin, everybody here of note seems to be a Eurasian. The love interest is a Eurasian (Ananda Everingham), and Wong's trio of buddies are all, er-hem, Eurasians. Does this film perpetuate the stereotype that falling in love and associating with Eurasians are more "in" than the common Chinese (or whatever Asian race you are?) I don't know, it sure seems that way. Also, everyone in the movie speaks in some mystical "anglified" accent which doesn't exist anywhere, certainly not in Singapore. It's the kind of "semi-perfect English" that authorities would like us speak, but which doesn't exist anywhere outside, say, the MTV Channel. The effect is that the dialog of the movie sounds forced and stilted, not helped by the lack of true-blue Singaporeans in the cast.<br /><br />The scriptwriter seems to be trying too hard to string one-liners after one-liners. After twenty minutes, the "wit" of the movie starts to pall and the film starts serving up its usual plate of clichés. <br /><br />I guess I didn't enjoy the movie because the entire premise of sustaining a love affair over 16 long years seems unbelievable. <br /><br />There are other incredulities in the film. I can't for one believe that KS (played by Qi Yu-wu) would fall for one of Wong's girlfriends. And the scene where the bridegroom says, "Go, before I change my mind," has been used in a hundred East Asian (Korean, Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese etc) TV serials...<br /><br />So 4 stars for this film. The production value is fair, and Wong Li-lin tries her best, but she's not helped by the script. Joan Chen has a 15-minute bit-part in the movie as the older Wong and is perhaps the best actress of the lot, but, hey, her role is just cameo.<br /><br />If you come across "The Leap Years" in the rental or library, you may want to pop it in the DVD player for curiosity's sake, but otherwise, for people who don't exactly enjoy the romance genre, you can decide whether or not to give it a miss.

I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's "Waitress" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie "The Bastard Song" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy: <br /><br />"It's a world of suffering,<br /><br />In a sea of pain,<br /><br />No matter how much sun you bring,<br /><br />You're pummeled by the rain...<br /><br />Don't let the heartless get you down,<br /><br />Don't greet the heartless at your door,<br /><br />Don't live among the heartless"

Released some months before the end of the war, "Anchors Aweigh" is one of Gene Kelly's major musical triumphs of the forties… <br /><br />Under the direction of George Sidney, it had the benefits of a pleasant score, and—best of all—the services of Gene Kelly in his first true starring role at MGM… The year before, in Columbia's "Cover Girl," he had revealed an innovative approach to dance on the screen, a light but agreeable singing voice, and considerable charm In "Anchors Aweigh," although he was billed under Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson, he was laying the solid groundwork for his most revealing years at MGM… <br /><br />The film's story, a kind of dry run for "On the Town" four years later, follows sailors Kelly and Sinatra on shore leave, spend their holiday in Hollywood, where they become involved in the affairs of an aspiring singer (Grayson) and her little nephew (Dean Stockwell).<br /><br />Grayson, it appears, has her heart set on an audition with conductor-pianist Jose Iturbi… She gets the audition, of course; Kelly gets Grayson after some misunderstandings; and Sinatra, has forgotten to be shy, and has lost his heart to a girl from Brooklyn (Pamela Britton).<br /><br />The plot is conventional for the period but, regrettably, it now seems barely tolerable… But there is Gene Kelly, who dominates the movie with his agreeable personality… Perhaps he grins too much, but when is permitted to dance, the film finally lifts off the ground… <br /><br />"I Begged Her," his early song and dance with Sinatra, is amusing and slightly absurd, in which he imagines himself as a bandit chieftain in a Spanish courtyard, courting maiden Grayson with a flamboyant flamenco dance and some athletic leaps… He also does a charming Mexican dance with little Sharon McManus in the square of a Mexican settlement in Los Angeles…<br /><br />The highlight of the movie, however, is Kelly's famous dance with the cartoon character Jerry the Mouse (of "Tom and Jerry" fame). Delightful and innovative, it skillfully combines live action and animation in its tale of a sad mouse king who refuses to allow music in his kingdom until Kelly, a sailor in the "Pomeranian Navy," wearing a striped shirt and a beret, shows him how to dance… "Look at me, I'm dancin'!" says the gleeful mouse king...

In the rapid economic development of 1990's in China, there is a resurgence of traditional Chinese culture, partially due to the rise of nationalism accompanied by the increase in wealth, and more importantly, due to the sense of spiritual belonging after the collapse of the old socialist ideology in the post Cultural-Revolutionary era.<br /><br />However, the resurgence of Chinese traditional culture, namely, the Confucianism, was not without disasters, because Chinese are adopted the entire tradition without eliminating the bad part, and the discrimination against girls demonstrated in this film is an excellent example.<br /><br />Moreover, not only the part that should be discarded were inherited, the good part that was supposed to be inherited, such as the traditional opera, and its technique, such as changing face, was ignored in the resurgence, and facing extinction.<br /><br />The director used this film to criticize the problem of re-embracing tradition by contemporary China and this is the deeper meaning behind the movie.

Comment? Like my comment is necessary? We are talking about all time masterpiece, for all seasons and all generations. This is only type of movies that i still have patience to watch. In this, like in other Disney's movies is some kind of magic. All characters are in some way, "alive" and "real" so it's easy to understand message, even if you don't understand language, (like i didn't understood when i first watched movie, because i was about six years old). Maybe my English is not so good, but i learned what i know mostly from this kind of movies, and this is one more great dimension of this kind of movies, which in present time are rare. But there is a one big shame. In my country is now impossible to watch this, or any other Disney's movie! We don't have copyrights, so our children are disabled to enjoy and learn from this kind of movies. So, we will watch this movie again "Once upon a dream" or...?

This movie makes me think the others I've seen with Combs were an accident. The plot had more holes than I think I've ever seen in a movie purporting to be something more than a "b" movie. The acting was so laughable that not even the memories of Combs' past campy triumphs were enough to save it. Considering the script I have to imagine that there was not enough money in the budget for things like continuity and original ideas. I am thoroughly upset that I paid Blockbuster prices for this trash. The fact that it was made for television was something that would have helped me avoid this atrocity and frankly something that movies this poor should be required to warn you of. Avoid this movie no matter what.

This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.<br /><br />My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)<br /><br />Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)<br /><br />Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.<br /><br />The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.<br /><br />We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.<br /><br />At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being "dead" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.<br /><br />Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.<br /><br />Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to.<br /><br />

Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?

At first sight, Who's Singing Over There just seems to be an absurd and excellent comedy… with only a kind of unusual, quiet and slow motion : what a mistake ! <br /><br />Beginning with two singers on a desert landscape, then a bus and a wonderful bunch of actors, it hides a gem !<br /><br />The folded story, and a false rhythm induces you to think, yes it is comic, but just lets you guess it will be a gentle kind of movie. <br /><br />Not at all : very funny by instant, dark subtle cynical on others, its development surprises you all along the story… Very ingeniously and cleverly presented, all the characters are important, and the actors give them full life.<br /><br />And what is astonishing, it's based on deep observation, great mastering of the camera work and has a great meanings, and really everything, the general direction and how also the details are presented, that it simply makes you forget it's a movie: it is like to watch a kind human society, you yet don't know,shot by a friend behind a camera.<br /><br />And you're the one behind him. It is simple, and simply exceptional !<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me; in no way that would means the script , the quality of picture, the music score have a kind of amateurish way, no, no ! It's great Art ! <br /><br />Because it flows like a river… From high up in the mountain, down to the sea, with all the different sort of grounds and peregrinations that a real river will face on its journey to the sea… from a tiny thing to a main stream.<br /><br />This metaphoric image I used is the very best way I can find to explain all the charm that has Who's Singing Over There. For me, again, I take the hammer : simply exceptional...<br /><br />I've seen that The Director is the one who made Chat Blanc/Chat Noir, which I know is quiet famous… But as I yet didn't see it, I had no idea about this gentleman.<br /><br />Others reviewers wrote dithyrambical comments on that film, I fully agree !<br /><br />European Eastern Cinema is not well know because seldom translated, but I am lucky to have this exemplar one in original language, with good English subtitles. All in all : deep, delicious and exceptional...<br /><br />For fast and empty exploding types and special effect buffs, avoid it at any cost, it may be too subtle and good for you !<br /><br />But if you're interested in different genres and/or classics, I guess you won't regret this one, and in case of buying, it will have good companionship in your personal DVD library, with such no less than merited big names like Billy Wilder, Lubitsch, or Sacha Guitry among some of my preferred directors . At least for this movie !<br /><br />***A film is never really good unless the camera is an eyes in the head of a poet Orson Welles***

I loved the the film. it beautifully analyzes Italian petty bourgeois society, how the leftists of the 70s have given up all their ideals and come to a happy arrangement which they don't want disturbed. For instance, the aging psychoanalyst who is jealous of his own son, and doesn't want to be reminded of his more radical youth.<br /><br />For a long time wanted to buy the video after having seen the movie a couple of times on the big screen and on TV, but it seems to have completely disappeared from the market, even in Italy no one in the book shops knew about the film. a great pity.<br /><br />The one sex scene, which everyone seems to go on about, does the film no harm.

Never even knew this movie existed until I found an old VHS copy of it, hidden deep in my dusty horror closet. The title on the box said "Insect" and the illustrations on the back made clear that it is just another insignificant and poorly produced 80's horror movie. They can surely be fun, of course, as long as don't expect an intelligent scenario and as long as you're not irritated by seeing a giant amount of cheesy make-up effects. Just about every important aspect that makes a horror movie worthy viewing is substandard here in "Blue Monkey"! The plot is ridiculous and highly unoriginal, the acting performances are painful to observe and there's a total lack of suspense. Following the always-popular trend of "big-bug" movies, "Blue Monkey" handles about a new and unknown insect species that wipes out the doctors and patients of a remote hospital. The makers couldn't be more evasive about the actual origin of this gigantically over-sized critter! All we know is that it's not from outer space and it initially crawled out of a tropical plant. Other than this, there's absolutely no explanation for where this new type of insect all of a sudden comes from! Like I said, don't get your hopes up for an intelligent screenplay. The first half of the film is entertaining enough, with some nice gore and the introduction of a couple deranged characters (an 80-year-old blind and alcoholic lady!) but the second half (when the entire hospital is put to quarantine) is dreadfully boring. It is also near the end that "Blue Monkey" begins to exaggeratedly rip-off older (and better) films. Approaching the climax, they apparently ran out of budget as well, since the lighting becomes very poor and the guy in the monster suit isn't very well camouflaged anymore. "Blue Monkey" is worth a peek in case you're really bored or if you really want to see every 80's horror movie ever made. Fans of B-cinema may recognize John Vernon ("Killer Klowns from Outer Space", "Curtains") in the small and meaningless role of Roger, who's in charge of the clinic.

I saw this film recently in a film festival. It's the romance of an ex-alcoholic unemployed man who just came out of a big depression and a single middle-aged woman who works in an employment office (INEM). I found the story very simple and full of clichés, taking the 'social' theme of the movie and turn it in to a romance comedy. The lead actor did a good job, he definitely looks like an alcoholic man, but Ana Belen is not believable as a working class woman, she looks, acts and talks very much like a 'high-standing' woman. What I mean is that Ana Belen plays herself. She does it in all her movies anyway. The whole mise-en-scene of the film was very poor. The photography is ugly, not using well at all the panoramic aspect ratio. The dialogue sounds totally scripted and dull most of the times. The comic situations are typical from Gomez Pereira, but in this case they are not funny at all and are resolved poorly. In my opinion this film is not worth watching. Only if you really love Pereira's previous films you might enjoy this one a little bit. Anyway, I walked out of the theater because I felt I was wasting my time. The film-maker was by the door. I wonder what a director feels like when he sees someone walking out of one of his films, specially one that is made to please everybody.

Now let me tell you about this movie, this movie is MY FAVORITE MOVIE!!! This movie has excellent combat fighting. This movie does sound like a silly story line about how Jet Li plays a super hero, like Spider-Man, or etc. But once you've seen this movie, you would probably want to see it again and again. I rate this movie 10/10.

What a pleasant surprise: A Disney DTV (Direct to Video) sequel that's actually GOOD. "The Lion King 1 1/2" is a comedy affair that involves everyone's favorite meerkat and warthog, Timon and Pumbaa. It starts out with them watching the original movie and making comments, until Timon complains that "we're not here yet". After fighting over the remote, Timon and Pumbaa decide to tell the audience "their story". They start the new movie, and the laughs begin.<br /><br />To be honest, I was losing hope in Disney. Most of their direct-to-video fare has been aggressively awful, with the story lines desperate to cash in on the original. "1 1/2" decides to try something different: It tells the original story from a new point of view. Okay, it adds some stuff, like where Timon came from and how he and Pumbaa met, but it's an interesting concept. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella perfectly recapture the bond and friendship that made us love them in the first movie. There's also some neat movie parodies (including one scene that simultaneously spoofs 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' and 'Cool Hand Luke), and the script is filled with funny memorable lines.<br /><br />Added to the cast are Julie Kavner ("The Simpsons") as Timon's worry-wart mom, and Jerry Stiller as Timon's slightly crazy Uncle Max. Matthew Broderick shows up as Simba, and his "teen" scene reminded me of Ferris Bueller. Everyone does well, especially Robert Guillame (is that how you spell it?) as Rafiki, who exudes more and more Yoda-speak in this movie (Timon comments on this several times).<br /><br />'The Lion King 1 1/2' is a perfect alternate choice for those of you getting tired of the Shrekification of animation. 10/10

And that comes from someone that will withstand almost ANY viewing. The acting and sound is awful. This might qualify for a "so bad it's good" point of merit,,,for some. However I take my horror movies seriously and this is just crap-it's just soooo cheap, I think that's my major complaint. The dialogue is often hilarious-attention to how many times "you startled me" is used. The "child" actress is seriously god awful-I pray her acting career ended here..her line "DONUTS! I HATE DONUTS" is worth repeated viewing however.

This is a hard-boiled Warner Brothers film starring a very young Barbara Stanwyck. A consummate master at portraying Machiavellian cool, a technique she perfected eleven years later in Billy Wilder's "Double Indemnity", Stanwyck plays Lily Powers, the well-worn daughter of a violent speakeasy owner in a suffocating steel-town. She has been rendered cynical and numb by years of being offered up as a sexual favor to her father's customers. Once her father dies in a distillery explosion, she hops a freight train to New York and literally sleeps her way up the corporate ladder of a bank.<br /><br />This would come across as preposterous were it not for Stanwyck's blazing work here. With her dead-eyed stare and amoral seduction methods, it is easy to see why men become addicted to her aggressive carnality. One of the young men she seduces along the way is a fresh-faced John Wayne as of all things, an accountant named Jimmy McCoy. The melodrama gets heavy-handed toward the last third of the film with a murder-suicide, a hush-hush job in Paris to keep Lily quiet and the new bank president who is so addicted to Lily that he embezzles company funds to keep her in luxury. A tacked-on ending is somewhat disappointing but not before Stanwyck sears the screen. The film has curious touches like Lily's bonding friendship with an African-American woman named Chico and the German immigrant who teaches Lily about Nietzsche philosophy regarding the importance of avoiding sentimentality.

The storyplot was okay by itself, but the film felt very bubbly and fake. It also had the worst ending. They were probably going for a surprise ending, but all it did was leave me the question of what the whole point of the story was. All other teen movies are better than this one.

I don't think I've really ever given Walter Matthau his due as a comedic performer. He's certainly been wonderful in plenty of lighthearted roles, but I guess I always put his success down to his characters' grumpiness and ruthlessness, a gruff contrast to the flamboyant personality of his frequent co-star Jack Lemmon, and, I suppose, a natural extension of his earlier work in dramatic pictures. Watching Gene Saks' 'The Odd Couple (1968),' adapted from a popular Neil Simon play, the realisation suddenly clicked: Matthau is, in his own right, absolutely hilarious! Initially striking the audience as filthy, crude and generally unappealing, his Oscar Madison eventually manages to worm his way into our hearts, culminating in a hilariously overplayed confession of emotions that Matthau rasps out in a voice not entirely his own. At the same time, while holding his own as a comedian, his interplay with Lemmon is, of course, pitch-perfect; indeed, the film rightly belongs to both actors, who have never failed to light up the cinema screen by themselves, let alone together.<br /><br />Calling to mind Billy Wilder's screenplay for 'The Apartment (1960),' this Neil Simon comedy builds itself around around a rather morbid premise. Compulsive house-cleaner Felix Unger (Lemmon), having just been evicted by his wife of twelve years, attempts to commit suicide, but fruitlessly abandons the idea after he wrecks his back trying to open the hotel window. Dejected, he arrives at the house of good friend Oscar (Matthau), a divorced slob who lives alone on a diet of potato crisps and green sandwiches (that might contain either very new cheese or very old meat!). Oscar kindly offers Felix a place to stay, but is soon overwhelmed by his friend's finicky personality and constant insistence on absolute cleanliness. The pair form an unusual sort of marital arrangement, with Felix assuming the role of the effeminate and constantly-nagging wife, and Oscar as the sloppy, unappreciative husband who always comes home later than he's supposed to. This is a marriage that barely lasts three weeks, and, by the end of it, we can completely sympathise with Felix's ex-wife, who remains unseen.<br /><br />'The Odd Couple' is a terrific comedy, most of all because it has a lot of heart. For all their arguing, it's obvious that the two roommates have plenty of affection for each other, most movingly seen when Felix tries to launch into a furious tirade, instead – perhaps inadvertently – ending up informing Oscar how "tops" he his. The pair's four poker buddies (John Fiedler, Herb Edelman, David Sheiner and Larry Haines) are also constantly badgering each other about some obscure annoyance, but you can't deny that they've got the best of intentions. Their decision to treat Felix as though nothing has happened to him may have sounded fine in theory, but maybe being ignored wasn't quite the correct solution to Felix's gloomy feelings of inadequacy and inconsequentiality. Unlike some comedies based on popular stage plays {I was recently disappointed by Wilder's 'The Seven Year Itch (1955)}, this film doesn't simply strike at the same chord throughout, and the relationship between the two leads is progressively developed, through tears, laughter and much disagreement.

No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.<br /><br />It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.<br /><br />Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.

What a master piece. To take the cold war conflict and transport it to the future. This film is satire of the highest order. In my humble opinion it outranks Dr. Strangelove.<br /><br />The clever naming of the two superpowers, as the Confederation and the Market. Cons being commies and Market, The west! outstanding. The Clever use of gen Joxs, was ahead of its time. only are we really seeing the dangers of genetic engineering. Robot joxs tackled the issue head on in 1989.<br /><br />The message of this film is about the comradeship of the humble man and how it can overcome the wishes of government. This movies screams DON'T DO IT YOU FOOLS YOU'LL KILL US ALL.<br /><br />EXCELLENT 10/10

i was intrigued to see how a little-seen 2008 film had somehow won the Oscar for best picture of 2009 and thus went to see The Hurt Locker. sadly, all i got for the two hours invested was the grim confirmation that this film had won awards purely for off-the-screen reasons.<br /><br />the direction and visual style of this film is some of the weakest you will ever see. when it's not busy being yet another Bourne Identity homage with dire, annoying "shaky cam" visuals, it shows off all the hallmarks of a second rate daytime soap opera in terms of lensing.<br /><br />the "plot" is threadbare, the characterizations are about as well developed as rejected Beetle Bailey comic strip ideas and the dialogue - on the instances where the film gives up on being "minimalist" and for no apparent reason turns one or two soldiers into right chatterboxes - is some of the worst ever recorded. in fairness, the actors do the best they can in the circumstances, just not enough to obscure how bad the project is.<br /><br />the whole film has the feel of it being intended as some kind of "mockumentary" that they clocked was bereft of humour and thus re-edited as best they could so as to pass it off as a serious drama.<br /><br />if you spend two hours on this film they are two hours you will never get back, and two hours wasted that you will regret for the rest of your life.

I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).<br /><br />I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.<br /><br />This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this).

You better see this episode from the beginning, because if you start to watch it any later, you will be confused as to what is happening to Clark's life.<br /><br />Yet, that is the twist; Clark is stuck in an alternate reality. Lana is devoted to him. Lex lost most of his legs and is in a wheelchair due to the bridge accident when he swerved to miss Clark in the pilot of the series. Martha is married to Lionel. About the only constant is his most loyal friend Chloe, who still believes in who he is. And, oh yeah, he doesn't have any superpowers. He is in a mental institution for putting himself in a fantasy world where he does have powers, and is ridiculed for believing so. Aside from Chloe, there is one mysterious figure who believes in Clark: a black man who in the alternate reality is also a resident of the institution, who believes he is from Mars.<br /><br />Clark must stay true to everything he believes is actual reality, and not get brainwashed by the institution's psychiatrist, who is in fact the fourth Phantom Zone escapee.<br /><br />This episode is utterly mind-blowing and shocking. Plus, it provides a fresh twist from the usual type of "Smallville" episode.

There are really two sections of this film. Firstly there's the laughable prologue to the film which is so hysterical and cornball that it would almost feel appropriate that the 'The Simpsons' Troy McClure should be doing the narration.<br /><br />Then the rest of the film begins (starting off with a title song which really doesn't fit in with the rest of the film) which, while technically OK, is killed by a vague, inconsistent and unconvincing plot and not just uninteresting characters, but characters that make no sense.<br /><br />This is especially so with Mickey Rooney's Spiventa, who was supposedly in on the plot and part of the 'organisation' the whole time yet what would have happened had Hackman made the seemingly arbitrary decision to take him along when breaking out? In that case he would've been a totally superfluous and unnecessary character, which in the end he still is.<br /><br />The overall problem of the film is that it's totally unwilling to put any detail on who or what is behind this conspiracy. It's as if the filmmakers didn't have the courage to imply that a particular section of society would be capable of creating such an organisation and instead settled on the hope that a lack of explanation would suffice and the audience would form their own conclusions.<br /><br />Put simply, the film fails on all levels.

Kalifornia is disturbing. I believe there is no reason for this story to be told. It is neither entertaining nor does it have social value. Technically, the movie is very well make, the performances are top rate and first class. The story develops in an intriguing way that holds interest. But at the end this movie sickens and is abhorrent to decency. I recommend Kalifornia to no one.

I found the memorable quotes searching for video clips; they forgot one of my favorites...<br /><br />Old Person 1: You know, I remember the first time they played that thing. <br /><br />Old Person 2: You remember pterodactyls. <br /><br />Old Person 1: And I can remember you fell for that, hook line and sinker. <br /><br />Old Person 2: Oh, I did not. <br /><br />Old Lady: You did so. You put a big bucket on your head and took off with them army boys to fight Martians. <br /><br />Old Person 2: Ain't you dead yet?

I'm a big fan of the old westerns, and do not believe that Hollywood is capable of capturing its old glory. But not even Ronda Fleming and Stewart Granger can help this 1957 movie which carries nearly all the trite characteristics of westerns of the reformed gunfighter turned good guy. fallen but virtuous woman, bigoted townspeople who must turn to gunfighter for salvation, etc. I can't help but notice the last names of the writer and young "actor" who plays Granger's son. Any nepotism there? I've seen better acting in high school plays. Chill Wills plays a cartoon characterization of Chill Wills. Have I reached the 1000 words yet?

Good sequel to Murder in a Small Town. In this one Cash and his police Lt. buddy unravel a sticky plot involving a Nazi criminal, a philanthropic witch, and a family of screw-ups and their wierdo helpers. As in the original, the viewer is treated to a nice little mystery with distinctive sights and sounds of pre-war America. Go see it.

Jamie Foxx is my favorite comedian. However, I feel that he sold out in order to gain his first big budget lead role. Foxx follows in the footsteps of the likes of Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence and Dave Chapple, who have all seen their talents wasted by stereotyping producers who think black males who commit pretty crimes is a funny concept (See: Money Talks, Blue Streak).<br /><br />Okay I laughed a few times and granted all of these comedians continue to pick up hilarious roles, but I would love to see these guys branch out ala Marlon Wayans portrayal in Requiem to a Dream. Or In Living Color's Tommy Davidson and Damon Wayans moving performances in Spike Lee's satire Bamboozled.

I was one of about 200 people that was lucky enough to see an early sneak of this film.<br /><br />Stardust follows Tristan a young man on a quest to find a fallen star and bring it back to the woman he loves in order to prove his love for her. The only catch is that the star has fallen on the other side of the wall, a doorway between England and a magical kingdom known as Stormhold.<br /><br />This film was just a joy to watch, it has something in it for everyone, all of the action scenes are played out beautifully and the comedy is spread out through the film making it funny without being corny. If I had to compare the likes to another film it would probably have to be The Princess Bride, a classic.<br /><br />All the performances are outstanding, the beautiful Claire Danes makes you love her in her portrayal of Yvaine the trusting naive star and under rated Michelle Pfeiffer delivers a stellar over the top performance as Larnia...but the performance to talk about is Robert De Niro...In every scene that he is in hands down he steals the show...<br /><br />If you are in the mood for a funny fantasy love story this is the film. Guys don't get turned off by the description there is enough action comedy and not to mention lots of eye candy with Claire Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer to keep you entertained throughout. The cinematography is dead on and keeps with the feel of the film...nothing about the film seems forced.

I was in second grade, 12 years ago. I remember it clearly. We were learning about space. All little kids want to go to space, right? Well, after I saw this, I was so scared to death that I would 'accidentally' get flung into space by some psychotic robot with a one track mind. I had no idea that this was a movie. I thought it was some news program or something. I guess it was my own version of when people were freaked out by the radio program 'War of the Worlds.' So, recently, I get this movie again to watch, realizing my favorite actor, Joaquin Phoenix was in it (then known as Leaf Phoenix). I can tell you, I was laughing at the dramatic parts and laughing even harder at the acting. I mean, when Andy is in space, she moves in slow motion, did you ever notice that? I don't think being in space makes you talk that slow or think that slow.<br /><br />The best part is when Andy is knocked unconscious by the oxygen tank, and begins to float backwards as the security doors close. Little Max is trying to pull her in. Suddenly, we get a major close up on Max's face as he shouts (in slow motion) "Whaaaaatttt'ssss happpeniiiinngggg?!?!?" I had no idea.

Having enjoyed Jean Arthur in "The Devil and Miss Jones", my interest was peaked, so I tried sitting through this second-string screwball outing about an investigation into the death of a jockey--but I didn't make it to the end. Arthur, photographed in a gauzy, movie-magazine fashion, either wants alimony from ex-husband William Powell or another shot at marriage, but I never felt for her because the character is just a string of wisecracks (she's the type of heroine prone to comical curiousness, but once inside a morgue--like all women in these '30's comedies--she faints). William Powell reportedly had a high time working with Miss Arthur, but you'd never know it from the end result; they look awkward standing next to each other, hesitant over their banter. The actor playing Powell's valet is excruciating, and the pauses for viewer laughs are pregnant with unease.

Unfortunately many consumers who write reviews for IMDb equate low budget with not good. Whatever else this movie might need, more budget really isn't part of it. Big sets and lots of special effects would have turned it into another Lara Croft movie. What we have here is a step or two better than that.<br /><br />The nearly unknown Alexandra Staden is captivating as the enigmatic Modesty, and this is crucial for this movie to work. Her wise little smiles and knowing looks are formidable, and you find yourself wishing that the camera won't leaver her face. It makes it workable that the bad guy Nikolai, played by also little known (in the U.S. at least) Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau might take an unusually cerebral interest in her, something Modesty can exploit. She is able to divert his raping her with just a shove and spitting out "stop wasting my time!" then storming off between his heavily armed yet suddenly diffident henchmen. Making a scene like that plausible doesn't happen by accident.<br /><br />Probably the biggest problem I have with the rail-thin Staden playing Modesty is it just isn't very believable for her to go hand to hand with an athletic and muscled looking guy like Coaster-Waldau and beat him. She just ain't a Peta Wilson or a pumped-up Hilary Swank type actress who can throw a convincing punch. Coaster-Waldau letting himself be overpowered by Staden looks like he's just roughhousing with his little sister.<br /><br />Since this is not really an action film, this isn't a big flaw. I just hope they do better on that if and when they make sequels.

Diane Keaton gave an outstanding performance in this rather sad but funny story which involved quite a few young people and their deep dark secrets. Diane Keaton,(Natalie),"The Family Stone",'05, who had an only daughter and loved her beyond words can describe. She always called her and told her, "Surrender Dorothy", which was an expression used in the 'Wizard of Oz',1939. A sudden car accident occurs and Natalie gets herself deeply involved with her daughter's friends and lovers. As Natalie investigates, the more truths she finds out about herself and her real relationship with her daughter. Great film to view and enjoy, especially all the good acting from all the supporting actors.

At first glance this gives the impression that it is going to be a laughable blaxploitation flick, and it does contain moments where it veers in that direction. However, the basic story idea is much stronger than might be expected, and is a respectable effort at portraying racial issues in the World War II era Army. The recognizable cast is hit and miss, with Glynn Turman, Richard Pryor and the underused Billy Dee Williams faring best. Stephen Boyd, however, stops just short of twirling his bushy mustache in an overindulgent star turn.<br /><br />The obviously low budget leads to inconsistency in the production values. The locations are great, the effects and action are weak. Imagine if "Saving Private Ryan" had consisted of half the platoon getting killed exactly the same way Vin Diesel's Caparzo had (except we do get to see the shot because they effects can't handle it), then Hanks, Damon and Burns drove around in a jeep and shot five Germans for the climax. Yet, the denouement, with the heroic soldiers receiving no respect for their accomplishment because they are black, and Boyd's racist Captain being effected by this, is compelling, as are the sequences of of Turman's character writing in a journal of his imagined exploits if the soldiers were allowed to fight instead of digging latrines.<br /><br />In short, "Black Brigade/Carter's Army" doesn't quite succeed. But it's a respectable failure, not a bad joke. It could be remade as a very good film, and, as it stands, is an interesting effort.

Harvey Keital's best performance so far the new century. Very nicely photographed, a beautiful snap-shot of pre-Castro Cuba. The story revolves around the nephew of a local minor crime boss who develops a friendship with an American with Hollywood connections. It's really about the moment when a boy awakens to the fact that the small circle of people he knows actually live in a much larger, much more complex world that he doesn't yet understand.the script is strong and filled with humor, the direction is crisp. Over all, a really professional job that fits in well with the tradition of Latin American cinema. The one weakness is the decision to shoot in sync-sound English rather than Spanish - probably to improve sales in the US. Unfortunately, this just makes the film a little less convincing. But if you can see beyond this, you will find a heartfelt trip to another world. Recommended.

Castle in the sky is undoubtedly a Hayao Miyazaki film. After seeing it for the first time I'm glad to say that it doesn't disappoint. On the contrary, you get your time's worth, which means (as to what Miyazaki's films are concern), that is nothing less than excellent! <br /><br />Produced early in his cinematic career, Castle in the Sky anticipates many of the trade marks in his later movies, with strong (but young) female characters, forced to grow up due to external circumstances, helped out by very interesting (and some times lovable) supporting characters. And, of course, the usual battle of nature versus civilization, flying machines (lots of it!!), beautiful painted sceneries … but alas, no pigs ( at least that i've noticed, after all I have only seen it once). Never the less, Miyazaki had already got his theatrical debut two years earlier, with Nausicãa, which was a dress rehearsal for Princess Mononoke, his magnum opus. Castle in the Sky is set a bit a part from these two, with a soft action packed first 30 minutes, resembling his TV series Conan, and his directed episodes of Meitantei Holmes. In here we are introduced to Sheeta, a girl who literally falls from the sky, only to be found by Pazu, a young boy working in a little countryside mining town. Intrigued by her amnesia and suspecting a connection between her and the mysterious flying city of Laputa, Pazu is set on helping her find out where she came from, whilst escaping the army and a gang of air pirates. As the movie progresses, the plot gets heavier and much more interesting, revealing Myiazaki at his best. <br /><br />The sound track is very reminiscent of Spirited Away, (or vice versa, as Castle in the sky was produced first), and much like its director, Joe Hisaishi _the composer_ starts with a very light score, that gets more complex and beautifully fitting as the plot goes forward! <br /><br />A note to the English dubbing, with a good interpretation from the two lead stars, although Anna Paquin's Sheeta has a very thick accent (which the actress still had at that point in her career), and a heads up for Mark Hamil as Muska, making up for a delighting yet devilish villain! <br /><br />Don't miss this one people!

"Rock 'n' Roll High School" will probably have to go down in history as the ultimate rebellious party flick. Portraying a bunch of high school students using the Ramones' music as inspiration to rise up against their despotic principal (Mary Woronov, of "Eating Raoul" fame), the whole movie is a mile a minute. It's basically a big excuse to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. Bullied freshmen? Check. A dorky music teacher (Paul Bartel, also from "Eating Raoul"*)? Check. Exploding mice? Checkmate.<br /><br />Anyway, this is the sort of stuff that makes life worth living. Even for someone like me who doesn't know the Ramones' music, it's pure pleasure. With Roger Corman executive producing and Joe Dante co-directing, how could we expect anything less? Too bad that director Allan Arkush later degenerated into fare such as "Caddyshack II".<br /><br />Also starring P.J. Soles, Vincent Van Patten, Clint Howard, Dey Young, Dick Miller (who has appeared in every one of Joe Dante's movies, and many of Roger Corman's), Don Steele, and of course the Ramones. A real treat.<br /><br />*It seems like Bartel and Woronov always co-starred. They also co-starred in Joe Dante's "Hollywood Boulevard" and the slasher flick "Chopping Mall" (also starring Dick Miller)...in which they reprised their roles from "Eating Raoul".

60 minutes in the beautiful Christina Galbo tries to escape the isolated boarding school she's brought to at the beginning of the movie. Is she running from some kind of fate too horrible to contemplate, a monster, black-gloved killer, or supernatural evil? No, she's running from a bunch of bullies. For the OTHER 40 minutes that follow, various figures walk around the school in the dark holding candelabras and looking alarmed or distraught, which doesn't say much in itself perhaps because great movies have been made about just that but if you're going to have characters walking around corridors and staircases you better be Alain Resnais or you better know how to light that staircase in bright apple reds and purples like Mario Bava. We know a killer stalks the perimeters of the school but his body count is pitiful and sparse and in the absence of the visceral horrors one expects to find in the giallo, we get no sense of sinister mysteries/unspeakable secrets festering behind a facade of order and piety and rightness which is the kind of movie La Residencia wants to be but doesn't quite know how to do it. We know something is off because girls are reported missing but we never get the foreboding mysterious atmosphere that says "something is seriously f-cking wrong here, man". When Serrador tries to comment on the sexual repression of the female students, he does so with quick-cutting hysterics and detail closeups of eyes and parted lips while high pitched "this-is-shocking" music blares in the background. None of the aetherial beauty and longing of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK to be found here. It's all a bit clumsy and aimless, with no real sense of urgency or direction. A number of people are presented as suspects but there's little reason to care for the identity of a killer that goes unnoticed by the characters inside the movie. I like the first kill, the image of a knife hitting target superimposed over the anguished face of the victim as a lullaby chimes in the background, but the rest is too inconsequential for my taste. I have to say Serrador did much better with the killing children and paranoia du soleil of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?

I went into this movie after having read it was a drama about a man with a supernatural gift, who was made into a monster by society. Suffice to say I was expecting something entirely different from what I got. But it was a happy surprise. My friend and I both thought the movie was very romantic (the fact that the male lead isn't bad to look at surely helped), and there was enough plot development, action and even humor (the fact that it takes them until the 3rd part of the movie to now each other's name had the whole movietheatre laughing) to keep you entertained and invested in the story. So in short: Not what I expected, but a very good surprise indeed. I'll definitely buy this movie when it comes out on DVD.

A lot of the user comments i have seen on the IMDB for this movie don't really do it justice. First of all, let me just say that this movie is not to be taken seriously. It's supposed to be a fun, yet stupid movie, that doesn't require one to think, only to enjoy it. If you watch this movie with the intent to see a masterpiece in either filmmaking or in humour, then you will be sorely disappointed. Yet, if you want to just watch a goofy movie with some talented actors/actresses, and some good catch-phrases, then you will enjoy it.

"Der Todesking"-Jorg Buttgereit's second full-length feature film(the first one was notorious "Nekromantik")has no central character or characters,but instead thematic continuity in the act of suicide.Divided into days of the week,it comprises of a series of set-pieces,each of which featuring the self-destruction of a complete stranger.Yes,the production values are low and it's disturbing,but in many ways "Der Todesking" is extremely effective.It makes you think which is sometimes more important than pure entertainment.Unlike the other Buttgereit's works it isn't very gory,but there are some unpleasant images like castration scene in the Tuesday episode,a decomposing corpse and various acts of suicide.The last(Sunday)episode is so depressing and full of pain!-just amazing if you want my opinion.10 out of 10-check out this post-modernism shocker!Disturbing art in the purest form!

Starlift is a pleasant and interesting throwback to those all star musical pictures that every studio was putting out during the World War II years. When you've got such stars as Gary Cooper, James Cagney, Doris Day, Gordon MacRae, and Randolph Scott, etc., in the film and with such people as the Gershwin Brothers, Cole Porter, Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn supplying the music, it's an easy to take film. And the plot isn't even in the way.<br /><br />What plot there is involves two Air Force enlisted men, Dick Wesson and Ron Hagerthy, trying to meet Warner Brothers starlet Janice Rule using as a gimmick the fact that both come from Youngstown, Ohio and Hagerthy's father was Rule's dentist as well as half of the town's. The scheme works too well as Louella Parsons is soon putting them as an item in her column. Yes, Louella's in the film as well. She must have liked Warner Brothers or Jack Warner catered to her more than the other studio bosses because she also used this studio to publicize her Hollywood Hotel radio program back in the day.<br /><br />But the rest of the plot also touched on the real life efforts of Ruth Roman also playing herself to get her studio and others to do shows at the Air Force bases for the servicemen and women going to Korea. Some of the names I've mentioned and others sing and perform in a show at Travis Air Force Base where a lot of this film was shot.<br /><br />One specialty number was shot for the talents of Phil Harris who sing/narrates a ballad Look Out Stranger, I'm A Texas Ranger aided and assisted by Virginia Gibson, Frank Lovejoy and Gary Cooper. Yup, Cooper looked like he was having a great old time kidding his image.<br /><br />This is the oldest of clichés when you say they don't make them like this any more, but they really don't because you don't have a studio system that has all this talent under contract. That's one thing about the demise of the old studio system we can mourn.

Cinematically, this film stinks. So does a lot of the acting. But I<br /><br />don't care. If there is a strong representation of what the 80's were<br /><br />like(For a lot of us in the innercity anyways) and what hip-hop, Zulu<br /><br />nation, and break dancing were really like.Great music, great<br /><br />dancing! It almost seems like a documentary of a time now past<br /><br />when hip-hop was a way of life. It's also interesting to see New<br /><br />York looking like ground zero from a nuclear attack. Some viewers<br /><br />may be too young to remember that It was a poor, run down city<br /><br />during the 70's and 80's. This is the best of all the hip-hop/break<br /><br />dancing movies that came out around that period. Of course the<br /><br />80's are considered a joke now with all the bad tv shows and<br /><br />movies, but those of us who lived through it will always remember<br /><br />it fondly for a time when music, dancing, and graffiti were fresh, yo!

I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.<br /><br />A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The "suspense" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.<br /><br />To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy.

I have been eagerly anticipating the opening of this film for several months. Being a huge Jim Carrey fan, I easily saw how he could morph himself into Seuss' Grinch and make the character his own. I was not disappointed. <br /><br />This movie was pure magic. Carrey is a master at his trade and no one could have played this role to perfection as he did. There was plenty to enjoy for both adults and children alike and this movie is sure to become a timeless classic for all to enjoy in the years to come. I already have visions of my young daughter sitting down year after year to watch this remake on video, and I undoubtedly will watch with her and laugh as I did the first time I saw it.<br /><br />Clearly, this movie has Jim Carrey written all over it, and I do not believe that it would have come together without him. However, the supporting cast was charming and entertaining in their own right, most notably the adorable Taylor Momsen who was the perfect foil for Carrey's antics. The set design, musical score and costumes all lent their hands to a magical, fabulous finished product and I believe all involved can be proud. <br /><br />It is not an easy feat to turn a 22 minute cartoon classic into a full length live action film, but Howard has succeeded with flying colours. For those critics who disagree, perhaps it is your hearts that are 2 sizes too small.

In this "critically acclaimed psychological thriller based on true events, Gabriel (Robin Williams), a celebrated writer and late-night talk show host, becomes captivated by the harrowing story of a young listener and his adoptive mother (Toni Collette). When troubling questions arise about this boy's (story), however, Gabriel finds himself drawn into a widening mystery that hides a deadly secret…" according to film's official synopsis.<br /><br />You really should STOP reading these comments, and watch the film NOW...<br /><br />The "How did he lose his leg?" ending, with Ms. Collette planning her new life, should be chopped off, and sent to "deleted scenes" land. It's overkill. The true nature of her physical and mental ailments should be obvious, by the time Mr. Williams returns to New York. Possibly, her blindness could be in question - but a revelation could have be made certain in either the "highway" or "video tape" scenes. The film would benefit from a re-editing - how about a "director's cut"? <br /><br />Williams and Bobby Cannavale (as Jess) don't seem, initially, believable as a couple. A scene or two establishing their relationship might have helped set the stage. Otherwise, the cast is exemplary. Williams offers an exceptionally strong characterization, and not a "gay impersonation". Sandra Oh (as Anna), Joe Morton (as Ashe), and Rory Culkin (Pete Logand) are all perfect.<br /><br />Best of all, Collette's "Donna" belongs in the creepy hall of fame. Ms. Oh is correct in saying Collette might be, "you know, like that guy from 'Psycho'." There have been several years when organizations giving acting awards seemed to reach for women, due to a slighter dispersion of roles; certainly, they could have noticed Collette with some award consideration. She is that good. And, director Patrick Stettner definitely evokes Hitchcock - he even makes getting a sandwich from a vending machine suspenseful.<br /><br />Finally, writers Stettner, Armistead Maupin, and Terry Anderson deserve gratitude from flight attendants everywhere.<br /><br />******* The Night Listener (1/21/06) Patrick Stettner ~ Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Sandra Oh, Rory Culkin

Unlike some comments, mine is positive. This movie wraps around the dinner table with a group of friends, some you like, some you don't. A few are related--mother, daughter, son. Their stories are not one smooth, happy with everyone and everything, type of life--much like real life. Some story lines do not evolve, they just happen. But like true families and good friends, they stick together. The wanna-be parents who are buying a baby are such a--holes! You are happy for the ending. Poor Delmar is stuck between a rock and a boulder taking care of herself, her mom, her son, and trying to keep all their lives together. This does not end with a sunset walk or house in the 'burbs and all are living in a dream world, but is a very real life portrayal of people living day to day, month to month. Overall, this is a good story and a great movie!!