Datasets:

zheng438

/

imdb-truncated

like 0

Coming immediately on the heels of Match Point (2005), a fine if somewhat self-repetitive piece of "serious Woody," Scoop gives new hope to Allen's small but die-hard band of followers (among whom I number myself) that the master has once again found his form. A string of disappointing efforts, culminating in the dreary Melinda and Melinda (2004) and the embarrassing Anything Else (2003) raised serious doubts that another first rate Woody comedy, with or without his own participation as an actor, was in the cards. Happily, the cards turn out to be a Tarot deck that serves as Scoop's clever Maguffin and proffers an optimistic reading for the future of Woody Allen comedy.<br /><br />Even more encouraging, Woody's self-casting - sadly one of the weakest elements of his films in recent years - is here an inspired bit of self-parody as well as a humble recognition at last that he can no longer play romantic leads with women young enough to be his daughters or granddaughters. In Scoop, Allen astutely assigns himself the role of Sid Waterman, an aging magician with cheap tricks and tired stage-patter who, much like Woody himself, has brought his act to London, where audiences - if not more receptive - are at least more polite. Like Chaplin's Calvero in Limelight (1952), Sid Waterman affords Allen the opportunity to don the slightly distorted mask of an artist whose art has declined and whose audience is no longer large or appreciative. Moreover, because they seem in character, Allen's ticks and prolonged stammers are less distracting here than they have been in some time. <br /><br />Waterman's character also functions neatly in the plot. His fake magic body-dissolving box becomes the ironically plausible location for visitations from Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), a notorious journalistic muckraker and recent cardiac arrest victim. Introduced on a River Styx ferryboat-to-Hades, Strombel repeatedly jumps ship because he just can't rest in eternity without communicating one last "scoop" about the identity of the notorious "Tarot killer." Unfortunately, his initial return from the dead leads him to Waterman's magic show and the only conduit for his hot lead turns out to be a journalism undergraduate, Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who has been called up from the audience as a comic butt for the magician's climactic trick. Sondra enthusiastically seizes the journalistic opportunity and drags the reluctant Waterman into the investigation to play the role of her millionaire father. As demonstrated in Lost in Translation, Johansson has a talent for comedy, and the querulous by-play between her and Allen is very amusing - and all the more so for never threatening to become a prelude to romance.<br /><br />Scoop's serial killer plot, involving grisly murders of prostitutes and an aristocratic chief suspect, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), is the no doubt predictable result of Allen's lengthy sabbatical exposure to London's ubiquitous Jack the Ripper landmarks and lore. Yet other facets of Scoop (as of Match Point) also derive from Woody's late life encounter with English culture. Its class structure, manners, idiom, dress, architecture, and, yes, peculiar driving habits give Woody fresh new material for wry observation of human behavior as well as sharp social satire. When, for instance, Sondra is trying to ingratiate herself with Peter Lyman at a ritzy private club, Waterman observes "from his point of view we're scum." A good deal of humor is also generated by the contretemps of stiffly reserved British social manners encountering Waterman's insistent Borscht-belt Jewish plebeianism. And, then, of course, there is Waterman's hilarious exit in a Smart Car he can't remember to drive on the left side of the road.<br /><br />As usual, Allen's humor in Scoop includes heavy doses of in-jokes, taking the form of sly allusions to film and literary sources as well as, increasingly, references to his own filmography. In addition to the pervasive Jack the Ripper references, for instance, the film's soundtrack is dominated by an arrangement of Grieg's "The Hall of the Mountain King," compulsively whistled by Hans Beckert in M, the first masterpiece of the serial killer genre. The post-funeral gathering of journalists who discuss the exploits of newly departed Joe Strombel clearly mimics the opening of Broadway Danny Rose (1984). References to Deconstructing Harry (1997) include the use of Death as a character (along with his peculiar voice and costume), the use of Mandelbaum as a character name, and the mention of Adair University (Harry's "alma mater" and where Sondra is now a student). Moreover, the systematic use of Greek mythology in the underworld river cruise to Hades recalls the use of Greek gods and a Chorus in Mighty Aphrodite (1995).<br /><br />As to quotable gags, Allen's scripts rely less on one-liners than they did earlier in his career, but Scoop does provides at least a couple of memorable ones. To a question about his religion, Waterman answers: "I was born in the Hebrew persuasion, but later I converted to narcissism." And Sondra snaps off this put-down of Waterman's wannabe crime-detecting: "If we put our heads together you'll hear a hollow noise." All in all, Scoop is by far Woody Allen's most satisfying comedy in a decade.

Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.

This is a Japanese film but there is quite a bit of English also spoken in here. It's a pretty film, with nice visuals, featuring the scenic beauty of Hawaii.<br /><br />However, that was the only redeeming quality for me. The story was generally boring. Who wants to watch a young woman sulk for 90 percent of the film because her "picture" husband is a lot older than he advertised he was? Granted, that could be a bummer......but get over it!<br /><br />Only in the last 10 minutes does she do an about-face and become fond of him. By then, for most viewers, it was too little-too late. We'd fallen asleep by then.

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.

This is the best mob film ever made. It deserved more then what it got at the Oscars. Nominated for things like its score, art direction, supporting role (Newman), this film could have easily been nominated for Best Picture, Director (Mendes), Actor (Hanks), Supporting Actor (Newman and Law) and won!! Hanks gives one of his best performances, and the kid who played Michel Jr. was so good that I'm surprised i don't see him in more movies today. Critics themselves didn't give this film enough credit. But besides the incredible performances, another real star of this film is the incredible music. This was by far the best score of the year. It was nominated but didn't win. This is a great film that should be seen by everyone. My Grade-A+

This anime is a must-see for fans of Evangelion. It's an earlier work of Anno Hideaki, but his unrestrained, dramatic style is quite in place. Also, those who didn't like Evangelion might find this release to bit slightly more palatable. Gunbuster is rather unique to sci-fi anime in that it's actually based on real science. In fact, the show has several little "Science Lesson" interludes explaining the physics behind some of the events in the movie. One of the big dramatic points in the film is the relative passage of time at speeds near that of light. The series does a wonderful job of dealing with the imaginably traumatic experience of leaving earth on a six month mission traveling near the speed of light and returning to an Earth where ten years have passed. The main character remains age 17 or 18 throughout the entire series while almost all of the other characters age considerably. Be warned, this show is heavy on the sap at times. It also has a couple of the most wholly unmerited breast shots that I have ever seen. I found it fairly easy to ignore the skimpy uniforms and boo-hoo scenes, because the series is otherwise very good, but viewers with a low sap tolerance might want to stay away from this one. On an interesting note, Gainax, as always, managed to run out of money in the last couple of episodes. However, they managed to use black and white film and still action sketches to produce a good resolution anyway. The ending is a bit silly, but it left me with such a good feeling in my gut I couldn't help but love it. Gunbuster is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of Anime around.

i honestly think that that was the best version of war of the worlds i've every seen. it was funny but it was also educational i learned whole lot the movie and if i could i would by that movie. my favorite part was when the soldiers killed on robot and another one came right from behind it. in the last movie war of the world i think that it should have been more like the first one and it would have been better. but any way i give this movie 2 thumbs up. <br /><br />and if they where to make another movie like this i will definitely watch it.<br /><br />thank you

I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season!

Yep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be "the best film ever made" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting.

What I hate about this show is how poorly the leads are written. These women have no self-respect or dignity. The entire plot is them throwing themselves at guys. Amanda Bynes' talent is completely wasted. She was brilliant on "All That" and her own show. Why they would write her and Jenny Garth as vapid, airhead, desperate, men chasing, "old-maid" wannabes is beyond me.<br /><br />Their plots and dialog remind me of "The Simpons", Homer says whenever his cartoon character Poochie is not on screen, "Everyone should ask, where's Poochie?". All the talk centers on whining about some guy, and then whining to some guy. Sometimes they change it up and the guy whines instead. Then they get back together or break up at the end. The 2 women are either shallow, stupid, or sex addicts. The only word I can think of is "sucks".

This is an amazing film to watch or show young people. Aside from a very brief nude scene, it gives an interesting glimpse into colonial rule in Africa that you'll rarely find in other films. It does bear a superficial similarity to OUT OF Africa, but without all the romantic fluff. The White French people in Cameroon are fascinating because they don't even seem to regard the natives as people. The Whites are all the bosses and they expect Black servitude without question. However, unlike real servants, you only once hear any of the Whites say 'thank you' and no other regard is given these people. Again and again, it's like they are pets or slaves, as the feelings of the people are never even considered. <br /><br />The central illustration of this thoughtlessness is the relationship between the mother, Aimée and her servant, Protée. Although at times they spend a lot of time together and it is only normal that they might begin to have sexual feelings towards each other, the White woman never considers Protée or the existence of his feelings. A good example of this thoughtlessness is when she has Protée lace up her dress and it's obvious that he is very sexually frustrated by this. Apart from this relationship, while almost all the Whites are completely oblivious to the fact that the Africans are people, a few go so far as to verbally abuse and treat them like garbage.<br /><br />Also interesting is the relationship between Protée and the little girl (who is the one who is grown at the beginning and end of the film). While they are very close, at times he's more like a plaything or pet and the girl never plays with native children.<br /><br />There is one bizarre White character who seems, at times, to regard the Blacks better but unfortunately his character is very inconsistent and confusing. One moment, he's doing hard work along side the Blacks or eating with them (something the other Whites would never have done) and the next he's trying to beat up Protée! I could only guess as to what motivated him--perhaps he was just a jerk, or was crazy or perhaps was a Communist agitator trying to stir up the Blacks against the Whites (who knows!). In fact, other than a few good scenes, this character seems pretty much wasted.<br /><br />While I really enjoyed the insight this movie gave, I wish it had instead been more than just a few snippets of this world through the perspective of a child during one small period of her life. The context and what happened to rid the country of colonialism is never addressed and the film left me wanting more. The film appeared to begin in the early 1980s (since she's wearing a Walkman-style headset) and when the film went back in time, it seems that it was set about 1960 (more or less), but there was never any mention of the 1950s anti-colonialism violence or independence for the nation in the early 1960s. I am guessing that some of this confusion might be that the makers of the film screwed up and SHOULD have made the beginning of the film earlier (such as the 1970s) and had the lady think back to her life there in the early 1950s--before the country experienced political change.<br /><br />Apart from the missing context and a confusion over time periods, using the prologue and epilogue that showed her as an adult traveling the country was a good idea. And I also appreciated the ending, as it was a pleasant surprise when you find out more about the nice man who offers her a ride. But overall, it just feels like something is missing--there just isn't any sort of resolution or message other than showing that colonialism is thoughtless and cruel.

Of the three titles from Jess Franco to find their way onto the Official DPP Video Nasty list (Devil Hunter, Bloody Moon and Women Behind Bars) this is perhaps the least deserving of notoriety, being a dreadfully dull jungle clunker enlivened only very slightly by a little inept gore, a gratuitous rape scene, and loads of nudity.<br /><br />Gorgeous blonde Ursula Buchfellner plays movie star Laura Crawford who is abducted by a gang of ruthless kidnappers and taken to a remote tropical island inhabited by a savage tribe who worship the 'devil god' that lurks in the jungle (a big, naked, bulging-eyed native who likes to eat the hearts of nubile female sacrifices).<br /><br />Employed by Laura's agent to deliver a $6million ransom, brave mercenary Peter Weston (Al Cliver) and his Vietnam vet pilot pal travel to the island, but encounter trouble when the bad guys attempt a double-cross. During the confusion, Laura escapes into the jungle, but runs straight into the arms of the island's natives, who offer her up to their god.<br /><br />Franco directs in his usual torpid style and loads this laughable effort with his usual dreadful trademarks: crap gore, murky cinematography, rapid zooms, numerous crotch shots, out of focus imagery, awful sound effects, and ham-fisted editing. The result is a dire mess that is a real struggle to sit through from start to finish (It took me a couple of sittings to finish the thing), and even the sight of the luscious Buchfellner in all of her natural glory ain't enough to make me revisit this film in a hurry.

I am a massive fan of the book and Orwell is certainly my favourite writer ever since studying Animal Farm at GCSE. I bought the DVD out of sheer curiosity, Burton is an actor I hold in high regard so when I heard that he played the role of O'Brien I was swung.<br /><br />I watched the trailer on the DVD first and some fears started to set in, mostly regarding the frankly terrible "Theme song", hearing the Eurythmics mechanically shouting "1984!" over and over again to an electronic beat is as bad as it sounds.<br /><br />The acting on a whole is pretty good, Burton and Hurt play their roles well and the tension that exists in the Ministry of Truth towards the end can be felt, especially in the harrowing Room 101 scene. However this is also where the movie is let down. The movie spends too much time focusing on the Love affair between Winston and Julia, which frankly isn't what Orwell was writing about. He was writing about a harrowing future, about how Ingsoc build up a mans beliefs and then shatter them all in the name of him being made to love Big Brother. The movie skips over what is essentially the most important part of the book, Winstons coming to terms with his position in life and the world, and his re-education via O'Brien.<br /><br />The comment on IMDb at the moment states that the movie sticks to the book is completely incorrect. Julia is not present when Winston visits O'Brien, they do not commit themselves to Goldstien's Brotherhood and confess their crimes. There is no obvious mention of the initial instances where Winston finds the article with the Unpersons but it does get mentioned near the end, if you have not read the book it is completely confusing.<br /><br />A terrible screenplay, which some excellent acting cannot rescue. Michael Radford seems to have completely missed the point Orwell was trying to make, and the electronica sound track is frankly terrible.

A fragment in the life of one of the first female painters to achieve historical renown, "Artemisia" tells the true story of a young Italian woman's impassioned pursuit of artistic expression and the vicissitudes she encounters. The film features sumptuous costuming and sets and a good cast and acting. However, it is muddled in its attempt to depict the esoterics of the art and the time and is uninspired in its representation of the passion of the artist as painted on canvas and explored through her involvements with men. A good film for those interested in renaissance painting or period films.

I saw that when I was little and it was excellent. Kelsey White as Lisa and the Meecy Mices where cute. Susan Bonde as Doodle and Sandra Dee Heidecke as Snoodle where Hilarius. Karen Boettcher-Tate as Profster was interesting. Burl Ross as Little Bunny Foo Foo was funny. Gregory Donavon as Kaiso was brilliant. Whats Hilarius that Snoodle and Doodle eat too much candy. Whats sad that Little Bunny Foo Foo that bops the Meecy Mices on the head then by a fairy will give Little Bunny Foo Foo few wishes then he turns into goon. This story is about when Lisa, Snoodle, Doodle go to the Big Rock Candy Mountains. This show is excellent the kids will like this show, new words, songs, and watching them playing.

OK. I'm biased. I live near Shrewsbury in England, where this wonderful movie was filmed. It still looks the same now. I remember them filming here quite vividly, and the fake snow on the streets for days on end. Often, when I'm walking through Shrewsbury I see a street or a house and it will remind me of this film.<br /><br />George C. Scott's Scrooge is a more realistic character than many of the other screen versions. His physical appearance isn't the typical miser. Scott's is big and imposing. A man who finds those smaller than himself to be inferior.<br /><br />We all know the story and the quotes. The book is one of the most cherished works in the English language. And I don't believe there are many cynics who would say that people aren't capable of change and redemption. This film version portrays all of that quite beautifully. George C. Scott may be American but he plays the part of the English miser with wonderful skill.<br /><br />I love this movie. If you haven't seen this version I would strongly urge that you do. It's usually available for a very small amount of money... or are you too mean?

Reasons to watch the movie:<br /><br />1) Bo Derek at 16 looks good and occasionally gets naked. She does a pretty good job playing an immature, insecure 16 year old beauty, in fact<br /><br />2) Many shots of a pretty Greek island<br /><br />But:<br /><br />1) Peter Hooten turns in the worst performance by an actor since Brutus played Caeser's friend in "Roman Senate Proceedings of March 15." He delivers each and every line in a delightful baritone bellow. Turn down the volume whenever he speaks. Preferably all the way down<br /><br />2) Bo's fantasies are sadly tame, especially by today's standards. A few turns in the bath and as a fully clothed model<br /><br />3) The plot is skimpier than Bo's costumes

Cuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.<br /><br />4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull.

This movie is based on the art of Frank Frazetta, the mythical fantasy illustrator. Some of the characters are straight out of his paintings (the Death Dealer being the best example). Surprisingly, the animation manages to keep the feeling of the original art. Bakshi is well known for his heavy use of rotoscope (the technique of tracing a live action sequence) and this film is no exception. However, since the subject of the movie is quite realistic (all characters are humans), this works pretty well.<br /><br />But what I really like here is the plot: for once we have a story with interesting characters and nice action sequences, a really hideous villain and a gorgeous babe. This movie has the feeling of the best Conan comics, not surprisingly since Roy Thomas is the writer of the Marvel series of our favourite Cimmerian! This is a far cry from the crappy live action Conan, not to speak of all the B-movie of the genre.<br /><br />Definitely recommended!

When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised. <br /><br />I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .<br /><br />I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions. <br /><br />Yes, the movie is very much like "Bend it like Beckham", but I actually think this movie pulls it off better.

"I just viewed this movie last night and I don't think I will ever think the same about any of the actors involved, because this movie will stick in the back of my mind."<br /><br />The above statement can be thought of as a good or a bad thing. I mean every time I see Tom Cruise or Demi Moore in a movie, I think of "A Few Good Men" which is a good thing. Now, every time I see Ron Perlman or Kristy Swanson, I will think of "Tinseltown" which is a VERY bad thing.<br /><br />I picked this up thinking that it might be something intelligent or at least make me chuckle and with Arye Gross and the aforementioned Swanson and Perlman, I thought that it at least wouldn't be bad. You could tell the movie was made on a budget the size of Wheeling, Indiana (Where? Exactly.), but maybe they used every dollar to make a good movie. WRONG.<br /><br />This movie is NOT funny or entertaining in any sense of either word. It is just there and lasts for 84 excruciating slow minutes.<br /><br />The characters are paper-thin. You almost care about NONE of the characters, and since the leads are two struggling Hollywood writers with a dream that is all the two struggling writers with a dream who wrote this need you to know about them. Okay, the two REAL writers know all about there onscreen versions of themselves, so they figure so does the audience. They don't even think about character development, except for trying to tie there story back to "Gilligan's Island".<br /><br />The plot is unoriginal. Two guys live in a storage center, where one of them stores a bed, and there are about twenty other people living there, too. The rest of the story is contrived and stupid. Have you seen "National Lampoon's Favorite Deadly Sins"? The second story with Joe Mantegna is about a television writer who can't find a good story to make a TV movie about, so he creates one. Now substitute the television writer for a screenwriter, morph Mantegna into to annoying actors half his age, and take away the comedy and you have this movie.<br /><br />The actors try. Kristy Swanson is in the movie for maybe 10 minutes and still gives the best performance in the movie. She is still hot, but it would help if she would actually STAR in a movie instead of constantly making CAMEOS. As for everyone else, I don't think it was the actors fault because they have BAD material<br /><br />Go watch the National Lampoon's movie, but stay away from this movie.

This is the magnum opus from the Swedish king of crap, Mats-Helge Olsson. Seldom has a movie of this magnitude been made in Sweden and it truly stands out as one of the most amazing achievements in Swedish film to date. Who pays for these things? <br /><br />The Russian nuclear scientist Markov wants to defect to Sweden. But his plans are ruined by the Russian military who kidnap him and tell him that he has arrived in Sweden. This trickery is their way of seeing to that Markov continues his work in nuclear physics that will revolutionize the energy supply for the whole planet. The CIA however is bent on getting Markov to the west and send their ninja to liberate him.<br /><br />The practice of having Swedish actors speaking English is something that Mats-Helge has perfected in his later works. The cheap b-movie feeling this creates is probably unmatched for performance. But besides this? Well the action is standard direct-to-video style. Machine guns firing huge clouds of smoke. Thousands of Russians dying. People running around in black ninja suits, trying to hide in the snow.<br /><br />What really stands out though is the insanely poor way the fighting scenes are choreographed. When they say "Ninja" in the title i expect martial arts, i expect close combat. But there are maybe two or three scenes of actual martial arts in this movie. And they are hilarious. It's so bad i lack the words to describe it. If the ninjas moved any slower their hearts would stop. And of course the whole movie ends in a bang that indicates a special-effects budget consisting of four food-stamps and a McDonald's voucher.<br /><br />So what's the verdict? Instant classic of course. Never before has a movie been made that is so obviously meant to be consumed along with huge amounts of alcohol. It's the ultimate party movie. Insert into video and laugh. One just has to realize that movies like these are not made any more. This is film history.<br /><br />Therefore the rating is 8/10 for entertainment, 1/10 for quality and 10/10 for accents.

This movie is really bad. The acting is plain awful except Michael Ironside. I don't get the story. Richard Grieco is the only survivor after a fight between two Mc-gangs. He comes to a town and suddenly he is choosened to fight against the bad people who wants indian-land. At the cover it said he was a indian himself that returned too his home-town, I didn't hear that in the movie, if so it wasn't clear.<br /><br />Richard Grieco was one hell of a bad actor. Stiff and ugly. He said his lines like it too. And we wouldn't talk about Sean Young, she hasn' been any of my favourite actors but in this movie she plays a indian women who falls in love with Bolt (Grieco). She is awful.<br /><br />When I rented it I choosed between this and Subterfuge with Amanda Pays. I choosed this one because of Michael Ironside was in the cast. Maybe I should have taken Subterfuge.<br /><br />Don't see this unless you think Richard Grieco looks tough on a motorbike with sunglasses.<br /><br />I will soon uptade the cast-list because I have it at home. I wrote it down after I seen the movie.

The original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.<br /><br />Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.<br /><br />A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.<br /><br />I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.<br /><br />The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.<br /><br />The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel.

This movie was the worst movie ever made on the planet, I like BARNEY more than this movie. The graphics suck, half the movie is animated, the deaths suck, and over all, I was ready to SUE the people that made this movie!PLEASE DO NOT WASTE HOURS OF YOUR LIFE WATCHING THIS MOVIE. The only good part was when the movie ******* ended! This movie is 50 percent Jurassic park, .1 percent Sabretooth, and 49.9 percent DUMB! Please do not waste your time watching this movie, you will regret it.You want to know why this movie sucks? Well, the cover sucked, the graphics sucked, the blood looked ( I mean is) ketchup, the people tried to blow themselves up, the college students think there all that and can stand up to the animal. I mean, there was a 5 ft. tiger running straight at a woman, she throws a spear at it from 100 ft away! WAIT TILL YOU CAN Actually HIT IT! The acting was horrible too. Jurrasic Park is actually a good movie, and this just had to go and ruin it.

I have to be honest, i was expecting a failure so bad, because it really did sound like they were trying to milk the original movie to get money. But that wasn't the case with this pretty funny (sometimes odd) movie. I loved how they told the story of Timon and Pumba, the story with Simba and him having trouble sleeping was funny. The jacuzzi bubble, and when Pumba leaves, the bubbles stop. It's all harmless fun, good for kids and some adults. I think this movie will last for a while because it is rather good for a straight to Video and DVD movie. While the movie does seem a little odd and kind of trails off toward the end, it works. 8 out of 10

'Loulou' delights in the same way an expensive, high quality French wine does. It leaves you with a very fine aftertaste.<br /><br />'Loulou's theme isn't new. The film doesn't carry an original plot either. Its colored picturing shows fine, but not extraordinary. Its setting is serious. Its elegant styling never and nowhere puts any weight on your mind.<br /><br />Whatever one further may say about 'Loulou', it's beyond doubt that this very French film stands out for its excellent acting. The three leads convincingly reflect all numerous doubts and tenses sparkling between them, making the plot alive. Their acting fully invites you to participate, to make friends.<br /><br />For those around at the time, 'Loulou' also provides an extra bonus: its perfectly captured mood of 1980.

This movie contains one of Richard Dreyfuss's greatest performances, as an actor who plays a dictator and does it so convincingly that his own mother does not detect the impostor. Also, this movie is funny, yet has a serious side as well. What is especially intriguing about this movie is the character Madonna, who is the dictator's mistress, but eventually becomes the leader of the country. Madonna's evolution from mistress to political leader added greatly to the quality of the story and to the movie's entertainment value. And the main character, who at the start of the movie is a struggling actor and somewhat of a buffoon, evolves too and by the end of the movie commands respect. I liked this movie.

True, the idea for this TV series may have sprung from the immense success which Ally McBeal is enjoying worldwide, even here in Germany. However, this said, Edel & Starck is very different from Ally McBeal in many ways.<br /><br />The two main characters work beautifully together. Felix Edel (Felix Noble), played by well-known German actor, Christoph M. Ohrt and Sandra Starck (Sandra Strong - Noble & Strong, get it ???), played by charming Rebecca Immanuel, exchange quick romantic repartees and continually spy on each other while engaging in sitcom-like criminal cases in Berlin and surroundings. Further, they are aided by a magnificent cast of co-stars, most notably their secretary, played by Isabel Tuengerthal, who is a rare gem with GREAT comic potential. Also the shady wheeler-dealer, Otto, and the noble childhood pal of Felix, Frank, work very well, not to forget Sandra's best friend and room-mate, Patricia, played by the beautiful Barbara Demmer.<br /><br />All-in-all a joy to watch on Monday nites: no wonder that the series and its stars have received several prizes. Will Felix get Sandra ?<br /><br />I hope that we will have to wait for many more episodes to find out......

Terry Gilliam's fantastic, twisted story of a virus destroying all but a handful of people across the Earth and forcing them to move underground and the man sent back in time to gather information about it is a fantastic, dizzying, and highly stylized film that boasts Bruce Willis' best performance ever.<br /><br />What sets 12 Monkeys apart from most time-travel sci-fi movies is that Bruce Willis character actually deals with what the psychological effects of time-travel, that is, not knowing what reality is actual reality: the place that the time-traveler comes from or goes to. Also, the film recognizes that things that have past cannot be altered and that the prevention of a cataclysmic event, in this case the release of said virus, cannot be stopped or changed. As Willis asserts "It's already happened," while he's in a mental hospital, the major dilemma the film trudges into is not a trite, overdone plot to save the world; instead it's Willis' inner struggle to simply survive himself. It's a fresh, innovative concept, and it works beautifully thanks to a tautly written script by Peoples and Gilliam's unique brand of dementia.<br /><br />Besides this, 12 Monkey's storytelling is totally non-linear and instead opts to distort and bend the way the story is told skillfully incorporating a bevy of different time sequences: flashbacks, dreams, memories, the present, the past, the future, and even a scene that is lifted out of Hitchcock's Vertigo. All serve to envelop the viewer into its disturbing cacophony of madness and futility.<br /><br />Visually, Gilliam is a master of desolate umbrage and shadow rivalling Tim Burton in his strikingly despondent scenery and imagery. With cold, wide, and immersing cinematography, Gilliam plunges into the colorless surroundings and darkness of his characters. The scenes are often bathed in a strangely antiseptic, dead white and help serve as a contrast to the often veering-on-madness characters.<br /><br />Performance-wise, Brad Pitt steals most scenes, filling them with a patented loony, off-the-wall performance that deservedly garnered him an Oscar nomination. As mentioned, Bruce Willis gives the best performance of his career, not reverting to his heroic cliches and cardboard hero and instead portraying Cole as a simple, poignant, tragic everyman. Equally good is Madeline Stowe as Willis' psychologist. She holds her own, injecting her character with both wild energy and strength as she collapses under the weight of what she comes to believe is a false 'religion.'<br /><br />Gilliam's expert, overwhelming, and complex handling of what could have been a routine action/sci-fi film makes 12 Monkeys a compelling vision of a nightmarish, futuristic landscape. Its rich, well-thought out, intricate storyline along with bravura performances from the entire cast and its brooding, bleak cinematography make it a masterpiece of madness. Ranking in my top 10 of all time, 12 Monkeys is a darkly lavish spectacle of a film brimming with brilliance.<br /><br />10 out of 10

Would anyone really watch this RUBBISH if it didn't contain little children running around nude? From a cinematic point of view it is probably one of the worst films I have encountered absolutely dire. Some perv woke up one day and thought I will make a film with little girls in and call it art, stick them in countryside and there isn't any need for a story or explanation of how they got there or why they don't appear to live anywhere or have parents because p*rn films don't need anything like that. I would comment on the rest of the film but I haven't ticked spoilers so I will just say avoid, avoid avoid and find yourself a proper film to watch

So I'm looking to rent a DVD and I come across this movie called 'End Game'. It stars James Woods and Cuba Gooding JR and has the synopsis of a taught political thriller. Well worth a look then. Or so I thought.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />End Game has just about the most ridiculous plot I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Now being something of a whodunnit, I can't really tear into it as I would like without 'ruining' it for those who have yet to experience this monstrosity. But questions such as 'Why has he/she/they done this?', and 'Where on earth did they get the resources to pull this off?' are all too abundant following the film's unintentionally hilarious conclusion.<br /><br />As for the acting - you know those films where you can almost feel that an actor's realised that they've made a terrible mistake in signing on for a movie, and this then shows in their performance? This is one of those. Accompany this with a laughable script and seriously flawed, irritating direction and you have the recipe for cinematic poison.<br /><br />Of course, this didn't make it to the cinema, and for the same reason you should not allow it into your living room; it is appalling.

I love horror movies that brings out a real amount of mystery like say "silent hill" ( which i found to be quite good, but still, was missing something ) and movies that keeps you guessing, this i thought was one of those movies. At first the movie starts out with some really good suspense and builds up a good starting point for a good horror scene, but after that it just rolls down the hill and from there it only goes faster and faster down. I mentioned silent hill at first for a reason because i can see a lot of "stolen" themes from that movie in here.. All in all i would say, watch silent hill instead of this one, its better, its more scary, it has a lot more suspense and also the ending is a lot better.. And best of all, you wont feel ripped off as i did with this one.. This just seems to be one of those "i like that movie so I'm gonna re-make it in my own really bad version" kinda movie.. Oh and one more thing... Lordi.. in a horror movie... thats like trying to scare a kid with a care bear who has "hug me and i will love you forever" written on the stomach of it..

The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.<br /><br />P.S. Don't buy this movie!

Spoilers of both this and The Matrix follow.<br /><br />I liked the original Matrix a great deal. It was not a deep movie, despite Fishburne's attempts to philosophize, but it was fairly well paced, fun, and I have a soft spot for Hong Kong fights.<br /><br />In the original, Neo was the secret life of the rather unhappy cube worker Anderson. By day, corporate drone, and by night, brave hacker. Eventually, he eventually is forced to choose between these lives by his actions - does he become an outlaw fighting the machine, or does he go back to the safe, forgettable world he started in. Interestingly, he discovers that once one is shorn of illusions, life rather sucks. He has his girl by his side and his boon companions, but he eats processed swill, dresses in sweats, and lives in a truly skungy bit of machinery. Still, the truth makes him free.<br /><br />At least part of the fun of that first movie lay in the "what if it were me" questions raised in the viewer's mind. What if _I_ were capable of the impossible? What if I were "The One". It does not even matter that much what you are The One example of, with a cool title like that.<br /><br />Further, agent Smith made a wonderful bad guy, as he embodied all of the fear of authority that we carry with us. He was as unstoppable as a terminator, and as merciless.<br /><br />At the end of the Matrix, Neo must return to the Matrix to share his good news of freedom.<br /><br />This movie fails to completely to carry through on the ideas of the original movie, and it does so with such lack of gusto, such poor scriptwriting and such poor editing that I cannot believe they had planned these changes. When the dialog is at a fifth grade level, with various long words dropped in randomly, I find it hard to believe that they understand what they are saying.<br /><br />My short list of characterization failures:<br /><br />The Oracle goes from mildly helpful, if deceitful to utterly obstructionist without any real reason.<br /><br />Major "personalities" of the matrix are introduced without need - the keymaster, for example, was a cute idea, but just not that interesting a character.<br /><br />Fishburne loses his "advisor" role, and gets nothing to replace it with.<br /><br />The people of Zion are not particularly likable, nor would you really _want_ them running the world.<br /><br />Special effects problems:<br /><br />The fight scenes are pointless and intermitable. In The Matrix, you felt Neo could lose, and that he had to become something greater in order to survive. In The Matrix Reloaded, he is merely the viewpoint character of a particularly poorly plotted video game.<br /><br />The fight on the freeway looked quite fake, and not that interesting.<br /><br />Pacing problems.<br /><br />As I mentioned above, the fight scenes were interminable.<br /><br />The rave went on too long - everyone in my row at the theater was looking at their watch. Not because we mind good dancing and good orgies, but because we did not know about the people pictured, nor did we care.<br /><br />Whatever hack wrote the creator's soliloquy should be blacklisted from the business. It meandered, used words that the scriptwriter clearly did not understand, and was a waste of time and a pacing killer. The creator's speech could have been done in a tenth the time, and with more peril as "Zion exists to give rebels a place to go so they do not destroy the Matrix. There are now too many people who do not believe; the matrix is in danger of crashing and killing every person hooked up to it. Further, the earth cannot support even the people in Zion, let alone these others. You may choose one person from Zion to form the new Zion, while I wipe the memories of the people currently in the Matrix."<br /><br />Instead, we got a long, drawn out bunch of twaddle. If someone argues that it is deep, ask for a transcript, and try breaking down the sentences. Each one is too long by several clauses, and uses words with clearer, shorter synonyms.<br /><br />So, in summary, not worth seeing.<br /><br />I have seen the third one, and despite what a number of reviewers have said, skip it. It does not save this turkey.<br /><br />The reviewers who feel that the second and third movies were "deep" should go see some truly deep movies. Perhaps read a book or two on rhetoric and debate, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. This movie is just not hard to understand, but it is hard to stomach.<br /><br />Scott

This is the only David Zucker movie that does not spoof anything the first of its kind. The funniest movie of 98 with Night at the Roxbury right behind But I did not think Theres something about mary was funny so that doesnt count except for the frank and beans thing he he. Dont listen to the critics especially Roger Ebert he does not know solid entertainment just look at his reviews.Anyway see it you wont be dissapionted

I watched this last night after not having seen it for several years. It really is a fun little film, with a bunch of faces you didn't know were in it. Arkin shines as always. Check it out; you won't be dissappointed. By the way, it was just released on DVD and contrary to its packaging, it IS widescreen. The transfer is rather poor, but at least the WHOLE movie is visible. ;-)

Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better.

I have walked out of about 6 movies my entire life. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know how I sat through an hour of it. I must have been in a coma that night. I saw it in the theatre when it came out 8 years ago. I couldn't even remember the name, but I knew that Penelope Ann Miller starred in it. It must have really affected me to be wasting my time commenting on it today. Yech! Vomit! Barf!

This movie tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who, after his fiance is decapitated, goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. Everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail, particularly our protagonist.

I am an actor,producer, director and what i am about to say are facts. This project was the worst film in movie making history. From producer to director and the edit of this so called film is a joke and i mean a BIG joke. Why would Blockbuster released such crap? I take my work very serious and this film is an insult to my profession. Was the director trying to make a bad movie? I don't think so. I seen bad Zombie movies, but this takes the cake the Coffie and everything on the damn table. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!! I really hate to talk bad about other filmmakers because i am one myself, but please consider in taking up a different profession. I respect the fact that you completed a movie, but i have to ask you " WERE YOU SMOKING CRACK ", I mean the makeup on your girls, the scary Zombies, what were you thinking. To the whole nation, if i could have voted Zero i would have. WORST FILM IN MOVIE MAKING HISTORY!!!

Really the tale of two cocky brothers and their respective falls from grace (via drug addiction) and later redemption. One brother, a self-proclaimed genius played by James Franco is your typical sensitive but intelligent man-child. The other brother is a hard-working future doctor who becomes less judgmental as he himself falls prey to addiction while dealing with the stress of living up to his family's expectations for both children. Not too heavy handed as drug fables are want to be, and all in all a pretty realistic sketch of the family dynamics that drug problems bring about. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in such character studies and commend James Franco for his efforts in what was obviously a labor of love.

I purchased the BLOOD CASTLE DVD on eBay for a few bucks not knowing what it was and all I can say is that I wasn't disappointed with this purchase. BLOOD CASTLE is one of those trashy European horror films that has almost no redeeming quality except for being thoroughly entertaining, for all the bad reasons. The opening alone was worth the price of the DVD: our heroine, Dr. Ivanna, arrives at the castle where she's supposed to help a scientist, Baron Dalmar, who does experiments on dead tissue. On her way to the castle 1) a man tries to rape Ivanna. 2) the castle's housekeeper fights with her. 3) the maid wants her dead. 4) and finally, Baron Dalmar nearly spits on her and wants her out the next day. Hmm...something tells me she's not welcome. With such a miserable arrival, you'd think Ivanna would leave the place in a NY minute but no, like so many great trashy films, our "headstrong" heroine decides to stay put and even enjoys a candlelight dinner with the grumpy Baron on that same eventful day. The intro is so over-the-top trashy (it's even greater than the memorable first few minutes of that Canadian film, JUNIOR) that I knew I was going to enjoy this.<br /><br />But the fun doesn't end there. Ivanna is repeatedly drugged whenever she goes to bed at night, only to wake up from unconsciousness, naked, bound and tortured in mild sessions of S&M by an unseen man. Even after experiencing these nightly S&M sessions, Ivanna stays at the castle, dully convinced by the angry Baron that what she's experiencing are nothing more than dreams. To be expected, even after being treated so badly from the get-go, Ivanna, falls in love with the Baron. Ivanna completely disregards anything negative about him, including the obvious fact that the dour Baron is popular with the young ladies. Every women at the castle (it seems only women work there) is in love with the miserable chump, who doesn't mind taking advantage of the pretty young things. Things get even sillier as someone lurks around the estate and kills (and has been killing) women. Basically, the Baron's physically disfigured brother, Igor is responsible for everything. In a very long winded scene, the brother warns the Baron he should not get too involved with Ivanna or he'll suffer the consequences. So what do the Baron and Ivanna do about this? Well, they get married of course! During the very brief marriage ceremony, the Baron is shot by one of the angry locals (father of one of the dead girls). But all of this doesn't deter Ivanna, who, amidst all the dead young ladies and torture surrounding them, cheerfully comforts the hurt Baron that "it's just a flesh wound" and the two can go on and enjoy their honeymoon at the castle, where the killer/rapist/torturer brother is. The whole thing quickly devolves into a nightmarish love triangle of sorts, between Ivana, the Baron and Igor. Blame it all on love!<br /><br />Anyway, you get the idea: subtle it's not. Almost everything is over-the-top ridiculous in this film and when it's not OTT, such as the predictable climax, things get a tad boring. But for most of the film, the director or writer revel in one illogically trashy moment after another. I really love these kind of films, everything as subtle as being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, and populated by characters behaving illogically. Even those who made the Retromedia DVD realize this and when you go to the scene selection section, we hear one of the funniest bits of dialogue from the dubbed movie looped endlessly. <br /><br />The production values are beautifully risible. The opening and closing credits, with those candles and red curtains...ah, a soupçon of class. The music sounds sometimes like something from a Tim Burton film, which only adds to the oddness of it all. And customary to these kind of films, when the young ladies take off their clothes, they just beg to be killed.<br /><br />As a standard film, I rate this a 2, but as a "it's so bad it's good" film, I rate it a solid 8 stars. If you enjoy trashy films, please watch this one. It's a must see. The only thing left for me to ponder about it: what would it have taken for that woman to get out of that freaking castle?

It helps immensely if one is familiar with the culture and time period in which this film takes place. First of all, these ladies are NOT geisha, they are oiran (prostitutes)in the Yoshiwara-type "green houses", circa 1860, give or take.. This should help clear up some details which may be confusing to the unaware. The film deals with issues of loyalty, love and, perhaps most importantly, how people deal with adversity, both their own and that of others in their immediate environment. That plus the outrageous photography together with the hauntingly beautiful music, make for a lovely ride. Just plug it in, suspend your disbelief and enter their world. You won't be disappointed.

This is definitely one of Jet's best efforts. Few actors are able to play the stoic as Jet Li can. The action is rapid-fire, and special-effects boosted for intensity purposes. As a result, it may take Americans a little off-guard. A little suspension of disbelief goes a long way in a Jet Li film. I feel that it is an excellent introduction to Jet's work and look forward to further masterpieces (especially Fist of Legend) making it into the US market. A nice mixture of gunplay and physical conflict will satisfy most action flick enthusiasts.

I thought it was an extremely clever film. I was very pleased with it and truly couldn't' ask for more. I actually own the film because I didn't return it to someone... Which I should do, but I really want to keep it due to how much I enjoyed it. Also, the fact I don't own too many foreign films and this is a first. Now, I personally love Finnish stuff so, that definitely added to how much I enjoyed it. But overall, its worth watching. However, if you're not into the whole trying to understand Finnish or read Subtitles bit, then this film is not for you.<br /><br />9/10 for sure.

Everything was better in past days. Even children's television. And Fraggle Rock proves my point quite easily. At the time of writing this comment I am fourteen years old but even in my teen years I can't resist the charm of Fraggle Rock. For those of you that have indeed been living under a rock (haha!), Fraggle Rock is about a horde of playful and goofy creatures called Fraggles who live-amazingly-in a rock. But they're not the only creatures. The rock is inhabited with many other species like the hardworking Doozers and countless living plants. Outside the rock on one side live inventor-scientist Doc and his dog Sprocket (who later befriends Gobo Fraggle), on the other side a family of Gorgs-supposed rulers of the Universe. The five main Fraggles Gobo (fearless leader), Mokey (arty and peaceful), Wembley (indecisive and a friend to Gobo), Boober (a pessimistic domestic god) and Red (loves anything to do with sport and general feistyness)get caught up in some strange situations each episode while at the same time sing and dance their cares away.<br /><br />Fraggle Rock is definitely a family show-the plots may have intricate details that infants may not follow well, but the song-and-dance routines will hold their attention. The characters are strong and likable, their conflicts believable and their adventures thrilling. The Gorgs are frightening, Doc and Sprocket enlightening, Uncle Travelling Matt hilarious (the postcard segments are very 80s!) and the final episode, Change of Address, genuinely touching. Let's go down to Fraggle Rock again!

By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.We sent an e-mail to when you registered. You must click on the link in that e-mail to complete your registration and enjoy the full benefits of being registered at IMDb.com. Whilst you wait for that e-mail, you can still update some of your registration details by using the links below. Don't forget to keep checking your e-mail though!

Disney has yet to meet a movie it couldn't make at least two sequels about. And this one was no exception to the people at Disney to give a weak story to receive a quick reward. Somehow, although I did not pay to view it, I feel cheapened by watching it.<br /><br />Ariel is grown up now and had a daughter. Yet doesn't allow the daughter to go into the sea because of some idle threat made by the sister of the deceased sea-witch. So here we go again.<br /><br />The daughter is tricked (of course) and helps the sea-witch. After a not-so-glorious battle, she is defeated and the mermaids and humans live in harmony. Yawn.<br /><br />There is nothing to view here. Go back to your lives. "D-"

I feel like I have some uber-rare disease that no one has heard of and I have finally come across a support group on the net! I finally found this title by asking for an answer on an "experts" site on the web. I too, saw this movie in my youth and was struck by the atmosphere and especially the ending. I have never forgotten it and have never seen it since. No one I know saw the film and I had almost given up on ever finding it's title. Alas, even knowing the name, I shall probably never see the film again as it is impossible to find commercially. Small steps...<br /><br />G

i'm ask... what a f*** are whit the real-TV never i see some b******* in my life is: a******, dirty, f****** bad and other a******* things but anything more is just a piece of American s*** all time Britney saying ''oh s***, i wanna see his cock, i wanna f***, and stuck his d***'' and he thinking ''oh like i gone to still her money'' it's just another show of s*** any one more the only good are what Britney sell in interior clothes but noting special noting it's just like i say another s*** show in this s*** sill out the money pure sex all f******* time, i just see for i sleep on the before show for this i wanna my f****** money

Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though "You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can." So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.

It is no surprise that writer/director Michael Powell considered "A Matter of Life and Death," his and Emeric Pressburger's spellbinding fantasy from 1946 to be his favourite of their films together. Released during the aftermath of World War 2, this colourful romantic adventure would have provided just the tonic for a traumatised, recovering nation in need of a good uplift.<br /><br />Following a string of other patriotic war films, 'The Archers' made this one their quirkiest, skittish and most patriotic of the lot. Quintessentially British for upholding British heritage (Shakespeare, beer, fair play, good manners), it is also visibly Americanised in its baroque compositions, technical inventiveness and a fine multi-ethnic cast.<br /><br />Oddly echoing another 1946 classic, "It's a Wonderful Life," AMOLAD opens on a grand firmament, with one of those jolly voice-overs preaching about the earth and the heavens, and what a big, wonderful world we live in. <br /><br />It then cuts to the inside of a British cockpit, badly hit, up in flames and with the co-pilot already dead. It sounds misconceived, but the connection is soon made lucid with the events that follow.<br /><br />Clocking in at nearly 5 minutes, the rapid-fire exchange between British pilot Peter (David Niven) and American radio contact June (Kim Hunter) is breathtaking in its intimacy. Resigned to dying, Peter nevertheless exhausts plenty of vigour, charm and outpouring confessions, and his warm affiliation with June closes with a mutual exchange of 'I love you.' <br /><br />Keeping with the magic of the moment, Peter, by oversight of his Conductor 71 whose job it was to transport him to the 'Other World,' escapes death and finds himself stranded on a beach. He later encounters June riding a bicycle, and instantly matches the body with the voice. <br /><br />But realising their error, the high court want Peter sent back, and order the French Conductor (Maurice Goring) down to earth to retrieve him. But Peter is adamant to live because of June and the Conductor's mistake, and wilfully guards his corner.<br /><br />Peter's fate ultimately lies with the heavenly court and American prosecutor (Raymond Massey), whose jury consists of several deceased war heroes and posh British delegates. The surreal trial, which dissolves from b/w back into rich Technicolor, once the verdict is announced, may well be a dream, but the final shot in the hospital validates the predictable outcome.<br /><br />The abstract, frame filling "stairway to heaven" (the American title of the film) is used twice: the first time in b/w, when it elevates Peter and his enigmatic French guardian upwards, crossing giant statues of Peter's potential attorneys for the trial, including Abraham Lincoln and Plato. The second time, the softly lit colour stairway provides the setting for what is an iconic image in cinema - Peter and June frozen side-by-side, their marvelled eyes fixed forward in the frame, their fate sealed.<br /><br />The unlikely affection shared between Peter and June never turns mushy or verbose; it's treated with nobility and the perception that the couple are already suitable enough to be married and simply need to convince people of their love, so it can keep them together. <br /><br />The French Conductor, who can freeze time and people's bodies, obtrudes many of their key moments together, lecturing Peter about history and among his mischievous tricks, pinching Peter's 'Top 100 Game Tricks' book and his coffee cup.<br /><br />As visually inspired as other Powell/Pressburger collaborations, this was the first time they combined colour with b/w – the latter having a cheerful quality when used for the heaven scenes, and both are equally captivating. <br /><br />The outstanding script more than matches the imaginative set design, with dialogue that sounds so immediate that is doesn't feel like it was written or performed for the screen. Amusing and witty, Powell/Pressburger's writing deserves equal acclamation with their forte for colour and composition.<br /><br />Made in 1946, "A Matter of Life and Death" is one of those films that defies it age, looking fresh and inventive, even in this age where CGI would vamp up its artificial effects, probably stripping them of their emotional wonder. <br /><br />Other jarring changes would include the need for reduced average seconds for cutting and the inevitable plea to shorten dialogue so it can preserve the low attention spans of most audiences. Powell weaves a spell that subconsciously absorbs the viewer from the first frame, giving him freedom to experiment with images without betraying the logical development of Peter's predicament.

I had to watch this in school. And to sum it up...<br /><br />Talentless actors, talentless script, and a talentless director.<br /><br />This movie is such a waste of your time. Don't even watch the movie. Don't bother. You will be so disappointed. My teacher said it was supposed to be good. How wrong she was. She even slept through it a little. The movie's actors were just bad. The best actor in there was the old man and that's not saying much. It's has horrible plot with awful characters. So unrealistic and I can honestly said it had no point. The script was unemotional and confusing. There was points in the movie when I furrowed my brows and said, "What?". Also there were just too many loose ties and plot holes. It was just absolutely horrendous.

Another very good Mann flick thanks to the father/son combination of Walter Brennan and Jimmy Stewart. Brennan (Ben Tatum) is often the comedic conscience of either Stewart or Wayne (Red River/ Rio Bravo). He's there to see that the younger man takes the ride fork or bend. "You're wrong Mr. Dunston". Jeff Webster(Stewart) gives off the impression he cares only for himself but it is clear he cannot desert Brennan. John McIntire is excellent as the law of Skagway with due respect for the trappings of justice over the reality of it. Another key theme is helping people and in turn being helped by people. The loner can do neither and suffers for it.<br /><br />The caption above plays on Tatum's assertion that he can't live without his coffee. This nicotine addiction proves fatal. Probably the first and last time on the screen.<br /><br />I recommend this film and now own the DVD.

I'm surprised this movie is rated so highly, although if I were to go with typical grade scale 71 is a c- or d so perhaps that's all right but this movie was just a typical thriller except boringly slow and unrealistic. Not that a typical thriller is realistic but this one seemed to be trying to, and yet the woman who got rapped didn't press charges because she didn't want to be cross examined in a court even though she would be putting the man who broke her arm beat the crap out of her and raped her away for life not but also protecting the lawyer whom she had feelings for and his family not just random people she didn't even know. There were other similar problems with the movie which would have been all right if there was some kind of moral to take away from the movie but the few moral questions like whether it was right to try to kill/beat Kady before he did anything illegal were presented a little one sided since Kady ended up being just a crazed bastard bent on revenge so sure the lawyer was justified in protecting his family since waiting for Kady to actually rape his daughter so he could do something legally about it would be a bit absurd. So now I've just waisted more of my life for this stupid movie so please don't see it so at least your life won't be waisted and that way my 2 1/2 hours or so has meant something.

Eytan Fox, whilst generally leaning on the apologist side of Israeli politics, has made several quite interesting films in the past such as "Walk on Water" and the simply wonderful film, "Yossi & Jagger". In "The Bubble", however, he has taken this illogical and unfair approach to the extreme.<br /><br />Far from giving this film a standing ovation, the people at the screening I attended quietly got up and left. I also quietly left, fuming with anger at such a ridiculously one-sided film that translates self-preservation as racist bullying, and racist bullying (and terrorism) as outbursts of justified anger; which implies that Arabs are so wronged by the evil Israelis that they react in anger to a constant stream of one-sided Israeli aggression against them, and that they, therefore, should not be held responsible for their actions.<br /><br />This film wasn't worth the money I paid for the ticket (indeed, I considered demanding my money back), and was basically an Israeli apeing of the Palestinian film "Paradise Now". If you want to be an anti-Israeli, then by all means watch this film, as it really justifies just such a belief system. The fact that this film was made by an Israeli director and, even worse, such a talented Israeli director, is a crying shame. Indeed, just how Israel can be surprised to be regarded as a pariah State when Israelis themselves make such anti-Israel propaganda, beggars belief.<br /><br />What a shameful, horrid little film!

While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is "racy". Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth?

1936 was the most prolific year for Astaire and Rogers. Their second film for RKO that year is the third film in this collection – Mark Sandrich's 'Follow The Fleet.' This time out Astaire is painfully uncomfortable as Bake Baker, a seaman on leave who just happens to stumble into the seedy waterfront café where Sherry Martin (Rogers) is warbling romantic sweet nothings in everyone's ear. Yep, you guessed it – they're hot for each other once again. Only this time Sherry's spinster sister, Connie (Harriet Hillard) threatens the whole fine romance by falling for Bake's robust seafaring buddy, Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott); a sort of use 'em up and toss 'em out kind of guy, thus forcing Sherry to reconsider her opinion of all sailors in general. Irving Berlin lends immeasurable class to the proceedings with his classic, classy score, including standards 'Let Yourself Go', 'I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket' and 'Let's Face the Music and Dance;' the latter a divinely inspired skit about suicide that turns into another immediately recognizable and thoroughly sublime pas deux for Fred and Ginger. <br /><br />The transfer on 'Follow The Fleet' is a tad weaker. The gray scale remains nicely balanced but now it's a tad thick looking with not nearly as much tonal variation as the previous titles. Grain is still present. So are age related artifacts. Once you've settled into to the slightly dense and sometimes more softly focused image quality, the overall impression is more than acceptable for a film of this vintage. The audio is Mono but very nicely balanced. Extras include a featurette, theatrical trailer and short subject, but oddly – no audio commentary. Considering the importance of this film in the overall canon of Astaire/Rogers this is an uncharacteristic oversight from Warner Home Video.

THE TOY BOX (1971) BOMB<br /><br />Sure, I like looking at nude women. While I prefer hardcore porn flicks, I'll take softcore exploitation grindhouse junk like this too under the right circumstances. Well, these aren't the right circumstances. These aren't ANY circumstances. There's supposed to be a horrific subplot lurking in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can untangle it. This is another of those amateurish steaming piles of badly made manure that bores you to tears rather than stimulates you, despite all the simulated sex going on all over the place. Bah -- if I want to see good sex scenes, I'll watch the real stuff.

This complicated western was a milestone in the career of JAMES STEWART after his return from war service, wanting to change his image by doing a western, which is largely regarded as the reason for the influx of westerns in the '50s since it's very impressive. Too bad it wasn't photographed in Technicolor.<br /><br />Stewart wins first prize for "the gun that won the West", but then has to spend the rest of the film trying to recover it when it's stolen. SHELLEY WINTERS is a shady gal with an unsavory reputation and STEPHEN McNALLY is the local bad boy gunman in Dodge City. WILL GEER is Wyatt Earp and DAN DURYEA is Shelley's bad boyfriend. And wouldn't you know that, it being a Universal-International film, TONY CURTIS and ROCK HUDSON (both quite unknown at the time) have bit roles.<br /><br />An interesting sequence features the first Indian attack, whereby CHARLES DRAKE reveals himself to be a coward who rides off, leaving Shelley alone in the horse-drawn wagon. He later redeems himself, but it's just one of the twists and turns that has the gun passing from one unsavory hand to another--but finally ending up with the rightful owner.<br /><br />STEPHEN McNALLY and JAMES STEWART have quite a final shootout that is almost as melodramatic (but not quite) as DUEL IN THE SUN's blazing guns finale. McNally makes the perfect villain and DAN DURYEA is equally treacherous in the kind of villainous role he played throughout the '40s as a low-life gunslinger.<br /><br />Tightly constructed story is extremely well directed by Anthony Mann, and it's fun to see ROCK HUDSON (credited as Young Bull) wearing Indian war paint and TONY CURTIS as a young soldier who casts longing glances at the then slim and attractive Shelley Winters.<br /><br />Well worth viewing and definitely an above average story.

The fact that I watched this entire movie says something about it...or me. It is not a good movie. Terrible in fact. But terrible in the way that kept my attention in that perverse manner that is akin to watching a tragedy and not being able to look away. It would have made a great MST3K subject!<br /><br />Most of the things that make a terrible movie enjoyable are here: bad dialogue, inappropriate music, contrived plot sequences, ridiculous pseudoscience. You'll thrill to slo-mo death sequences, the poor victims with mouths agape and waaaaaaaay too much time to contemplate their impending doom, facing the outrageously contrived deliverer of their deaths. Your heart will be warmed by old action scene cliches like when two women struggle for a gun and it goes off, but WHO'S SHOT? Both look at themselves, then the other, then themselves, then (seemingly 15 minutes later), one finally goes down. You'll sing along (in latin of course) with the street carolers that turn into a ghastly death's-choir that, for a moment, threatened to turn the movie into a twisted musical.<br /><br />So if you believe like I do that as movies get worse they get better, then this might be a decent choice for you. It's not as funny as my current sci-fi schlock favorite, "They Live" featuring Rowdy Roddy Piper, but it's more fun to watch than luke-warm movies like Omen II or III.<br /><br />I give it 4 out of 10.

Sorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed

I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.<br /><br />When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.<br /><br />Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.<br /><br />Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.<br /><br />Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.<br /><br />However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order.

I purchased this movie on blu-ray because it promised great visuals and music. I was also a great fan of a similar movie... Baraka. The movie is very much styled after Baraka, wide angles, very similar shots with cameras set to capture long time passage in each shot. Even some of the scenes were identical (the street with traffic). Whereas Baraka told a great story, juxtaposing nature, man-made environments, spirituality, and horrors of the world in an engrossing fashion and great music, this movie just jumped from shot to shot with no encompassing story, mediocre musical score, and then.... POOF, it's finished! I thought there must be some sort of mistake! History of the world? Half the movie is Egypt and landscape (looks like Arizona, but I didn't bother to check). Seriously folks, this is horrible, rent it if you must, but do not buy it. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out.

I lived during those times and I think the program caught the heart of the era. I do think it should have dealt with more of the Afro American issue but I think it cover a lot in the program. It was scary to sit and watch the riots on T V hoping that they would not go as far as your families home and that it would not get burnt down. I thought Jerry O'Connell did a great job portraying a vet coming back from the war. I went to school with guys who came back. Some had changed more than others and some not so much. It bothers me when someone comments that an issue was not covered enough or it was not entertaining enough. Live through it and then make comments. I thought the movie was great and that everyone in it did a remarkable job. Thank you for a trip (sad and good) down memory lane.

While the sparkling chemistry between Ryan and Robbins alone is reason enough to see this movie, the supporting cast (including Matthau, Fry, Shalub, Durning and the hilarious trio of Jacobi, Saks and Maher) is an additional plus. Matthau shines as Einstein, Fry is perfect as Ryan's clinical fiancé, and Shalub's line about Einstein's gonads is, as has been noted, one of the highlights of the film. The speech that Robbins delivers at his first appearance in public is sheer poetry. Kudos to the writers for handling this froth with wit and levity. I also thought that Keene Curtis was wonderful as Eisenhower. This might be considered something of a chick movie, but I think everyone will get a kick out of it. Eight very solid points.

'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.

I don't think any player in Hollywood history lasted as long as David Niven did given most of the weak films he had to carry by dint of his incredible charm. He could act, got an Oscar for it, but most of the material he did was as light as one ply of two ply tissue paper.<br /><br />Happy Go Lovely is a case in point. It's a musical and for the most part you'll remember Vera-Ellen's dancing. You'll remember that they are in Scot's costume as the film is set in Edinburgh during their festival. But if you can recall a single song from it you must have a photographic memory.<br /><br />The plot is light. Vera-Ellen is the American lead in a musical that apparently is getting its out of town tryout in Edinburgh. She starts in the chorus and runs late one day. She gets a lift from the chauffeur of a millionaire greeting card king. Everybody now assumes she's the main squeeze of the millionaire. Doors open up as they've never opened before.<br /><br />The millionaire is David Niven and he goes along with it and the various situations that are engendered by the mistake. Cesar Romero has some good moments here as the frantic producer of this musical.<br /><br />In the end though Happy Go Lovely is light and harmless fluff which David Niven did so much of and got so tired of.

I admit it's very silly, but I've practically memorized the damn thing! It holds a lot of good childhood memories for me (my brother and I saw it opening day) and I have respect for any movie with FNM on the soundtrack.

Rain or shine outside, you enter a movie house. It makes you happy. (If not, come right out.) Lights go off. You settle down with a bar of ice cream. Moving pictures begin to flicker on the screen. You feel content. In the dark, you are back in the beginning of time. Sitting around the campfire...looking at the modern version of the flickering flames 24 times per second and sharing the joy of discovering the unknown turns and twists of the scenario with rest of your clan/spectators.<br /><br />Those who are not happy with themselves, should not write comments. (Long live romantic comedies...)

New York I Love You just like its predecessor (Paris Je T'Aime) is a compound of various stories that reflects the different kinds and aspects of love but unlike it the rhythm is much faster and the stories much shorter. The movie offers a unique view of the city of New York with its various and different landscapes. New York, I Love You offers a first class cast, featuring such great actors like Shia LaBeouf, Natalie Portman, Ian McKellen, Hayden Christensen, Chistina Rcci and Orlando Bloom, Ethan Hawke, James Caan and Robin Wright Penn among others and some excellent writers and directors like Brett Ratner and Anthony Mingella.

This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.

Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this!

The highlight of this movie for me was without doubt Tom Hanks. As Mike Sullivan, he was definitely cast against type and showed that he can handle an untraditional (for him) role. Hanks is usually the good guy in a movie - the one you like, admire and root for. Sullivan was definitely not a good guy. It's true that in the context of this movie he came across as somewhat noble - his purpose being to avenge the murders of his wife and youngest son. Even so, he was already a gangster and murderer before those killings. So Hanks took a role I wouldn't have expected him in, and he pulled it off well.<br /><br />Hanks' good performance aside, though, I certainly couldn't call this an enjoyable movie. After an opening that I would best describe as enigmatic (it wasn't entirely clear to me for a while where this was going) it turns into a very sombre movie, about the complicated relationships Sullivan has developed as a gangster - largely raised by Rooney (Paul Newman), who's a sort of mob boss, and trying to raise his own two sons and to keep them "clean" so to speak; isolated from his business. After the older son witnesses a murder, the gang tries to kill him to keep him quiet, gets the wrong son (and the mother), and leaves Sullivan and his older son (Mike, Jr.) on the run. It becomes a weird sort of father/son bonding movie.<br /><br />Although it ends on a somewhat hopeful note (at least in the overall context of the story) it's really very dark throughout, that mood being reinforced with many of the scenes being shot in darkness and torrential rainfall. I have to confess that while I appreciated Hanks' performance, the movie as a whole just didn't pull me in. 4/10

If you like "Othello," you'll love this flick since half the movie revolves around the stage production of the play.<br /><br />The film has a great cast with Signe Hasso and Shelley Winters as the women in Colman's life while Edmond O'Brien plays the enterprising press agent.<br /><br />A couple of the supporting players I particularly liked were Millard Mitchell as the grizzled reporter who finds an angle and Joe Sawyer, the 1940's answer to Drew Carey, who plays the cop on the case.<br /><br />Great raw moments in this one with noir realism throughout.

Why did this movie fail commercially? It's got a sharp script (by Ron Shelton) and great performances by Kurt Russell and, especially, Robin Williams, in a brilliant manic nerd turn that's different from any of his other work. A great renter.

I first saw Rob Roy twelve years ago. With little money for entertainment, I rented it for my fiancé and I to watch on a bone chilling winter's night. The movie I had wanted was gone, so I rented this instead, not expecting much, and was very much surprised with how good it was. I just recently watched it again, and loved it every bit as much as the first time. <br /><br />For those unfamiliar with the story, it's about Scottish outlaw Robert Roy MacGregor, a cattleman and folk hero. From the little I know about the man and his story, liberties have been taken with the facts, but it's a movie, not a textbook, and so the filmmakers can be excused. Basically, the plot of the movie is that Rob Roy borrows money from the Marquis of Montrose to buy cattle which he then intends to sell and reap a large profit from. But, his plan is foiled when the friend entrusted with the money is robbed of the cash and murdered in the forest. Our hero finds himself on the run after failing to settle the matter with the Marquis, and Mary, his wife, suffers a sadistic rape at the hands of Archibald Cunningham, a smarmy Englishman with no soul. Atrocities ensue, until, in an immensely satisfying conclusion, Rob carves Archibald up like a Christmas turkey. <br /><br />There are many great performances in this movie, but allow me to touch specifically on a few. Liam Neeson, as usual, is fantastic, a sexy beast you can't take your eyes off of. Honestly, this man is like ice cream: even when he's bad he's good. His Rob Roy is an honourable man struggling to provide for those who depend on him, in the best way he knows how. Jessica Lange, as Mary, gives this woman a fierceness which is a nice change from the simpering, dull movie wives audiences are usually forced to endure. You just know she doesn't take any b.s from Rob, or anyone else for that matter. Tim Roth is completely over the top with his portrayal of the evil Archibald, yet somehow, it works. All the posturing and preening, combined with some wicked dialogue, result in one of the most memorable movie villains in recent memory. Combine all of this, and the stellar work by other supporting players, with the luscious scenery of Scotland, and you have what amounts to one really, really cool movie. If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend that you do.

It's about an embezzler, Peter Ustinov, who infiltrates a British company, Texa-Conn or something like that, posing as a computer whiz and security expert. He secretly learns to hack into the computer, while gathering the admiration of his boss, Karl Malden, the enmity of his office rival, Bob Newhart, and the love of his inept secretary, Maggie Smith.<br /><br />Some of the business details were a little murky to these non-business-oriented eyes but they're believable enough and I got the general idea. Ustinov, the peculating Peter, establishes phony businesses in Paris, Rome, and Stuttgart, and uses Texa-Conn's computer to send all kinds of money to these ersatz establishments. The overseas companies, of course, consist of nothing more than himself, Ustinov, and the addresses are an abandoned artist's loft in Paris, a barber shop in Rome, and a bakery in Germany. He simply visits them to collect the checks he's sent himself.<br /><br />I didn't think I'd like it for the first few minutes because it seemed rather on the slow side. I was expecting something with a faster tempo and more outrage, along the lines of "The Pink Panther" or "The Lavender Hill Gang." But this film insinuates itself into your good graces as you come to appreciate the understated humor in the plot, the characterizations, and the dialog.<br /><br />Probably it would be a bad idea to give away too many of the relatively subtle gags but here are some examples of the more noticeable.<br /><br />Ustinov to Secretary Smith: "Let me have the assets of these companies." Smith: "Assets? What are they?" Ustinov: "Little female donkeys." Now, nothing is made of this little exchange. There's a quick cut and no delay for any laughter, which is appropriate because one's reaction is more likely to be a smile than a laugh.<br /><br />Ustinov searches out that crummy loft in Paris. It's covered with cobwebs. Bricks are strewn around and a couple of the former occupant's paintings have been left behind. The landlord doesn't speak English and Ustinov knows no French. Ustinov points to a child-like painting of a nude woman and chuckles, "Ah. A fam fye-tal, eh?" Landlord chuckles too, replies: "Vous le prenez pour une anee?" Ustinov: "Oh -- ANNIE, so that's her name!" Landlord: "Oui?" Ustinov: "Entente cordiale!" (Mes amis, if I got those genders wrong, je m'excuse.) Bob Newhart as Willard Gnatpole (!) has the hots for Maggie Smith and is supposed to be driving her home but tells her he's taking "the scenic route." There is an immediate sequence of suggestive traffic signs. "Caution." "Lay-By." "Give Way." "Yield." Ending with the imperious "STOP/CHILDREN." There's another montage when Ustinov's scheme is about to be discovered by the board of directors -- blurry rooftops, police cars, a farewell embrace from Maggie, ending with a sign: PRISON, Wormwood Scrubs.<br /><br />Well, maybe one more. I still can't get over Malden as the boss, declaring decisively, "I never agonize over decisions," then gulping a handful of pills and washing them down with a glass of water.<br /><br />The acting is unarguably fine. It's Bob Newhart's best role, for instance. Not that he had that many, and not that his range wasn't limited, but he's perfect in this part. The musical score by Laurie Johnson obviously had a good deal of effort put into it. She seems to have written a brief concerto for flute. Ustinov's passion is music and his overseas establishments are headed by false names like Claude Debussy and Giacconino Rossini. Stuttgart's phony president is somebody named Schmidt, and he's an anomalous clinker. Maggi Smith is pretty, sexy, bourgeois, and turns out to be not nearly so dumb as she seems.<br /><br />Delightful, in its own quiet way, but don't expect comic fireworks.

"Creep" is a new horror film that, without a doubt, will please many genre fans simply because it's so down to the point and unscrupulous! It has many genuine shock-moments, a whole lot of repulsive gore-sequences and a rare claustrophobic tension. What it hasn't got is logic and a solid plot but, to tell you the truth, that didn't bother me for one second. When the end-credits start to roll, there are still many unanswered questions to ponder on but director/writer Christopher Smith (in his debut) seemly preferred to fully focus on tension and adrenalin-rushing action instead of long, soporific speeches and theories that could explain the existence of the "creep" in the London subway. The story revolves on the young and haughty Kate, who leaves her own party in order to go and meet the famous actor George Clooney who's in town to present his new film. She falls asleep in the subway, misses the last train and she finds herself trapped in the underground subway network. Things really get terrifying when she encounters a mad-raving lunatic who lives in the old tunnels and kills/kidnaps people to experiment upon. Even experienced homeless people, security guards or sewer-workers can't rescue her from this ravenous monster! I really dug the creep-character! He's nauseating, hideous and primitive but in a strange way fascinating. Christopher Smith only leaves us clues and hints, and it's merely up to the viewer to guess this vile creature's origin and background. I reckon this isn't very original, and I'm sure many people won't appreciate the lack of content, but I forgive Smith and I think it's better this way than going over the top completely, "Jeepers Creepers"-style (that particular film started out great as well, but as soon as the Creeper's identity was clear it turned into a very mediocre horror effort). The obvious aspect-to-love is the outrageous gore! There's some severe butchering going on in this film and the make-up, as well as the sound effects, are very convincing. The ominous setting of the abandoned London subway during night is effectively used. There also is some acting-talent present in this film, with Franka Potenta (Run Lola Run) returning to graphic horror nearly five years after the cool German film "Anatomie". Creep is terrific entertainment when you're in an undemanding mood and Christopher Smith definitely is a director I'll keep an eye on. Make sure you don't have to take the subway right after watching this film...

....Rather well done, actually--attack the evil villains in their lair, stop a Little Big Horn style ambush, save the day via the waterboys' bugling, works for me. Stiff Upper British lip and all that.<br /><br />So how does it play on a DVD 66 years later? Struck me as being like a Western, subbing Apaches or Sioux for the Thugs, and the US Cavalry for the Imperial British Army. It's very Colonial in it's outlook, you know? White Man's burden and all that? Kipling certainly would have approved.<br /><br />Cary Grant, Fairbanks and MacLaglen play it as broadly as possible, putting some buddy buddy slapstick into the mix between the shootings and brawlings for good measure. (I had no idea it was Joan Fontaine as the token army wife--did they leave some of her scenes on the cutting room floor? very short-) None of them were aiming for an Oscar here--in fact Grant was not at his best in a few scenes--but sod it, it still works. And where else would Ben Casey wind up as an Indian bugler? Only in Hollywood.<br /><br />Def. check this out if you like adventure and pseudo-Western style antics. It was done by a bunch of pros, well I might add.<br /><br />*** outta ****

"A truly nice story with a moral about brotherly love" describes this odd David Lynch film. This was especially "odd" because it wasn't the kind of film Lynch had been putting out in the last 15 -20 years. Those were dark and shocking films (Blue Velvet, Wild At Heart, Mulholland Drive) and this is the opposite. I know it disappointed a lot of his fans. Others were delighted by it. Count me as one of the latter, and I own all three of those "dark" films, too.<br /><br />This was another supposed-true life story, here detailing an elderly man's trip in a seated lawnmower from western Iowa all the way to Wisconsin to see his ailing brother who he hasn't talked to in years but wants to see before the latter dies. Well, I guess that premise - an old man driving a lawn mower 400 miles - still makes this an "odd" film of sorts, so Lynch stays in character with that! <br /><br />Richard Farnsworth plays the title role. He is the type of guy, face-wise, voice-wise, low-key personality-wise, that just about everyone likes. The wrinkles on his face tell many a story. It was so sad to hear what happened to him in real life a year after this film was released.<br /><br />The first 25 minutes of this film isn't much, and not always pleasant as it shows the main character's adult and mentally-challenged child (Sissy Spacek) and her tragic past, but once Alvin Straight (Farnsworth) begins his trip, the story picks up. I played this for several friends and they thought the film NEVER picked up, but I am more generous with it. I think it's a hidden gem. To them, it was a sleeping pill.<br /><br />I found his trip pretty fascinating but you have to realize in advance this is NOT going to be a suspenseful Lynch crime story. It IS slow and if that's okay with you, you might like this. Charm enters the picture in some of people Alvin meets along the way, such as a wayward young girl running away and some nice town folks who help the old man out when he gets in trouble. (Henry Cada as "Daniel Riordan, is a standout in that regard.) Harry Dean Stanton gets third billing, but that's a joke: he's only in the final few minutes of the movie!<br /><br />The Iowa scenery is pleasant. I lived there for several years and can attest to the rolling hills and the rich soil. It's a nice state with nice people....like this movie.

This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). It was like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expected Beowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"<br /><br />I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV show and he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept it consistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They kept slipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English, sometimes in the same sentence.<br /><br />There are already many comments on how this movie is different from the source material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is not good. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse. Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story, dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, they spent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.<br /><br />Life is too short to watch this movie.

Nine out of ten might seem like a high mark to give for a straight to video sci-fi movie that's been vilified at the US box office and roundly criticized as the poorest movie of Kurt Russell's career.<br /><br />I have my reasons.<br /><br />Firstly when you read negative reviews of this film, they usually start with the wooden nature of Russell's interpretation of Todd, the eponymous Soldier. I'm going to start here too, with my surprising statement that this is possibly the finest piece of acting I've seen Russell pull off. Todd is an emotional cripple and suffering from intense PTSD - this movie being written before the phenomenon was as widely recognized as it is now.<br /><br />The portrayal is spot on. Todd is withdrawn, uncommunicative and a loner. He suffers from irrational anxiety - keyed to a fever pitch by training that teaches him to analyze every movement and interaction with another human being for signs of betrayal and danger. His hyper-focus brings with it an inability to comprehend the bigger continuum that the tasks he is given to do sit within - there is a scene where he cuts himself slicing carrots and continues to work unfazed, not cleaning up the cut or the blood. Many interpret this as a sign of his physical toughness and focus on the job at hand, but it is also a sign that he is simply performing the requested task by rote - not comprehending the relationship between the vegetables he's preparing and the food that will be eaten later.<br /><br />Todd's dialog is spartan to say the least - the two big talking scenes he gets are central to the plot of the movie and both underline the bleak nature of his existence. Fear and Discipline we are told. Always. Fear to keep him pumped up to a hyper alert state where the smallest detail will not pass him by, keeping him ready to react on a knife edge. Discipline to hold him in check through his fear, to overcome it and perform tactically. The inference is that he has no time to think and cannot afford feelings. Many viewers have different interpretations of his reaction to the hug from Nielsen's Sandra - but I believe you have to interpret it from the perspective of a human who's only experience of an embrace is in combat - the trembling represents him suppressing his fight / flight instincts reacting to the fear of being grappled, his movement and vision restricted - Fear and Discipline indeed.<br /><br />Then there is the subtext of his abandonment (Twice in fact) - so representative of the way our society tends to toss infantrymen onto the rubbish heap of society when they've served their terms. 40% of the unemployed are ex-military in OUR world, in HIS it can only be worse. Russell quickly picks up the mantle of Mace's responsibility to his wife and child - desperately in need of a mission, even one with such a high likelihood of his death.<br /><br />Then there is the military subtext too - the conflict between Busey's Church and the hotshot from HQ, Mekum. Mekum's new men are faster, stronger, more accurate and aggressive. Any one of them could pound Todd into the ground - but it's not about the tools you have it's how you use them. An incentivized Todd given the freedom to exercise his initiative and acting without the numbing effect of perceived superiority utilizes ambush tactics and sneaky tricks to cut a swathe through the newer unit - sent in without support, cover or reconnaissance. It is a reminder that military power cannot make up for a failure in leadership.<br /><br />There are many other subtle themes. When a film is shot and scripted so minimally, it leaves plenty of white space for your own interpretations to take root. Watch Soldier with an open mind and see what it teaches YOU.

Cannon pulled off a real visual beauty of a medieval epic that appears fascinating (except for the dragon prop). Now just how did the long-gone studio known for Chuck Norris movies ever come up with a complete lack of knowledge in the first place? Case in point: the amateurish acting and horrible plot is a sign that reviving the medieval legend is no cure for some lousy execution. They actually went on and made another cheap exploitationer featuring hundreds of lusty bimbos, just to make this look even better. For the two "Barbarian Brothers", they sure know how to make weird noises than becoming brave warriors so strong and bold enough to save their native land. This is the single greatest waste of potential I've seen from an "expensive" low-budget movie, and worse enough to let an axe strike through the gorgeous print without mercy. All of this followed an advertising campaign that sold T-shirts based on THE BARBARIANS! The movie alone makes a great souvenir!

There are way too many subjects avoided in cinema and eating disorders is one of them. This film shows it as it is. It is not glamourised for the viewers to enjoy, it is shown with real truth which makes it all the more powerful. I've only seen it once and that was a few years ago but i can still remember everything about it and how it made me feel. It is a very powerful film and is good support for anyone suffering from a eating disorder to give them the willpower to stop. This is what films should be about- they should be there to help people and not glamourise things that are wrong.

I'll admit to being biased when I reviewed this since it was my introduction to the series. I saw this film for the first time in ~2005 on the late night "Fear Friday" on AMC, which often pulls obscure gems like this out of cold storage for new generations. I made it a point to watch the entire Amicus anthology series before reviewing any of them here to make sure I had perspective. Looking back, I still rate The House That Dripped Blood as my favorite, followed closely by Tales From The Crypt and then Asylum.<br /><br />I think all of the elements that make this series charming---the vintage '60s/'70s style cinematography, creepy to kooky, far-fetched tales and the utter Britishness of it all right down the backing music----came together better here than any of the others overall. The movie centers around a very old English country house and the misfortune that befalls all that dwell within.<br /><br />The first story involves a horror writer and his wife, who moved into this secluded place to get a break from the city so he could concentrate on his passion. He creates a murderous character called Dominic and soon starts experiencing great difficulty telling reality from fiction. There is a subtle physchedelia here via his torment that I found amusing yet creepy. Oh and those horrible prop teeth (then again these are British actors, maybe those were REAL!!!) <br /><br />The second story is the tale of a lonely old man (Peter Cushing) that has moved here to escape his loneliness, yet it only worsens as he is haunted by lost love. He seems to have found possible salvation at a local (very creepy) wax museum, but it turns out he would have been much better off alone.......<br /><br />The third story includes the great Christopher Lee (my fav British horror actor) as a single father with a rather disturbed and thoroughly creepy young daughter. He is constantly wary of her getting into things she shouldn't---like witchcraft! She has a natural talent for it, with good reason. Lee is superb here as the ice cold disciplinarian, that man has a true talent for playing characters that are absolutely devoid of warmth!! But despite his best efforts, the little troublemaker does in fact learn forbidden knowledge and bad things follow......<br /><br />This final story is the tale of a cynical old veteran actor that feels the young director he's working with isn't qualified to capture a proper vampire film, right down to the quality of the costumes and his cloak in particular. So he goes to a old curiosity store in the middle of a foggy night to get something more "authentic". Little does he know that he picked up a truly authentic vampire's cloak! Putting it on at the stroke of midnight has rather noticeable effects. By the time I had gotten to this fourth and final story, it was after 3 am and I couldn't quite stay awake on the first try (not from boredom). But I did experience something that I have hundreds of times, a curious bonding experience I have with films or music when I drift in and out of sleep and the film/music becomes part of my dream!! Great fun!! This bizarre story was perfect for that and seemed much scarier the first time than it actually was because I woke up right when he was levitated by the cloak's power and couldn't quite comprehend was what happening at first. Not long after, the lovely Ingrid Pitt, a costar on his movie set, came to visit and he warned her not to put on the cloak at midnight---but he needn't have bothered, for she was a real vampire herself. The chintzy keyboard jingle that followed as she flew toward him on the staircase was simply hysterical!! And again in my half-asleep state, seemed rather confusing! Side Note: Make sure to catch Lee and Pitt along with the stunning Amicus star Britt Ekland in the all time classic film The Wicker Man (1973). <br /><br />The weakest link here was the interlacing commentary between stories, but based on the stories themselves, this is a classic! Objectively, I would say the third story is best, but I like the 4th most because it makes me smile so much.Very highly recommended for horror fans and if you're a British horror fan, it's mandatory! I'd say it's worthwhile to view the series in chronological order if you can. The last film of this series, Monster Club (1980) is certainly the weakest. I think the first 3-4 films except for the at times mediocre Torture Garden (1967) are the best, but if you like any of them, you should watch them all at least once. You'll probably be back many more times to watch your favorites.

Contrary to most other comments about "Syriana" on the IMDb web-site, I and my family found watching this film on DVD at home a complete waste of time and space.<br /><br />In short, this was a film based on a script whose writer was being too clever by far. Rather than trying to tell a complex story in an intelligent and clear manner, it was assumed that constantly throwing mostly vague and hard to connect with each other 30-second vignettes of different story-lines from a dozen or so "story-lines" at the audience made for great and clear viewing. No, sir, it does not. What does make for great viewing is total clarity, precision, plots and story-lines - and characterisations - which have a beginning, a middle, and an end.<br /><br />This kind of cinematic presentation - akin to the Dim Sum experience in a Chinese restaurant - is pretentious and unintelligent in the extreme.<br /><br />Thank goodness, then, for the TV and DVD presentations of the Hollywood and British film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s whose writers, director, and actors knew the value of clear story telling, diction, and acting that meant something.<br /><br />This is one DVD that this family will not be sitting through again.

Another Spanish movie about the 1936 Civil War. This time we're told about the story of Carol (lovely played by débutant Clara Lago), a little girl which comes to live to a little Spanish village from New York. It is such an initiating trip, and soon she'll find about the injustices of the human race, their stupid fights and conflicts, their contradictions.<br /><br />Imanol Uribe makes his best film since "Días Contados" (1994) with such a sober pulse, a beautiful photography, and a nice script. He tries not to take part in the conflict, he just shows us some facts and let us decide (ok, the facts are explicit enough to make us decide in which band are we in) and he takes a huge advantage of the presence and the freshness of the young starring couple: Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta.<br /><br />A well cared production.<br /><br />My rate: 7/10

Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?

Neil Simon has quite a body of work, but it is the Odd Couple that carried him to fame. This film really works. Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthaw have a great chemistry. The supporting cast for this film is stellar as well.<br /><br />It is about 2 men living together who are from opposite planets. The script bristles with humor from this situation. This had been done in some forms previously. This is the one that brings it all together in a very good package.<br /><br />Simon has done some other decent work, but this one is really his best work which made the rest of his work possible. It is hard to imagine Simon ever topping this.

Damp telling of the American Revolution.<br /><br />When farmer 'Tom Dobb' (Al Pacino) and his son arrive in New York Harbor, they are immediately conscripted by street urchin Annie Lennox... Annie Lennox?... to contribute to the war effort.<br /><br />After getting chopped down by bits of chain-link fired from British cannons, Tom and his son are promptly chastised by Continental Army sympathizer 'Daisy' (Nastassja Kinski) for 'not standing their ground'. Following this Kodak moment, a series of digressive chapters take place including Tom's participation in a 'foxhunt' in which he must carry a model of "poor old Georgie Washington" stuffed in effigy while running from a lace handkerchief-wielding English captain (Manning Redwood), and having a barbecue with a group of Iroquois Indians as they plan on the best way to sneak back into the fighting so Al and his ingrate kid can kick the crap out of British officer Donald Sutherland's butt.<br /><br />Director Hugh Hudson presents a unique style of film-making and the atmosphere is as thick as the proverbial London fog, but the scriptwriter's painting of the redcoats as evil monsters once again reveals Hollywood's patented hatred of the British.<br /><br />Steven Berkoff appears as an enlisted American soldier.

Another one for the Babes & Bullets crowd. The story is much edgier than any other musical I have seen: cannons hidden up the missing legs of females, and places each generatively in the other in a way that comes closer to intelligent comment than we might expect for the locale. More effective than contemporary 'drama.' It is hard identify with a woman who keeps a cannon up her pants -- in lue of leggage. Pretty remarkable if you consider the context.<br /><br />Despite the cannon up the leg thing providing 90% of the surprises, this film also chronicles how greed supersedes all other considerations in the lives of a group of yakuzas who pursue a woman who keeps up her leg a concealed cannon/rocket-launcher (hence no group shower scenes or thongs) The hidden projectile-launcher which is pulled out from the behind the protagonists back, seemingly from nowhere, in miike's Dead or Alive (1999), The torch brought forth out of thin air by the heroine towards the end of the original Tomie (2000), or the harrowing flame-thrower scene in Sunny Gets Blue (1992), all testify to an almost third-world Cantinflas-esquire influence in the contemporary Japanese cinema, of which I am at a loss to explain, but cannot complain.<br /><br />You won't see good quality movies of this essence made in Hollywood, its all but extinct and with cheap crap they pump out for a cheap thrill, is all but laughable. This is a true film and while its great in its entirety, the ending is a brilliant, if not unblatant rip-off of certain Sergio Leon pictures, involving cannons where legs should be, and certainly is appropriate!

Gillian Anderson is an arrogant, driven, career woman who picks up working class oik Danny Dyer for a night of fun. After a stupid accident in the countryside, they are brutally attacked. After recovering, and after a chance meeting with one of the attackers, their thoughts turn to that of revenge...<br /><br />I thought "Straightheads" was terrible. Violent, brutal, misogynistic and unpleasant. If I didn't dislike the phrase a great deal I would call "Straightheads" a video nasty. Certainly it was the kind of film that would have had a no budget release straight to video during the dark days of the 1980's. Frankly I don't know how "Straightheads" got a cinema release.<br /><br />I am not a prude. I don't mind sex and violence in the movies, but they have to be married to a movie with a) a good plot or b) good characterisation or c) preferably both. "Straightheads" had neither. No progression in the plot or the characters and too much left unexplained and unsaid. Luckily "Straightheads" went nowhere fast. It was only 80 minutes long.<br /><br />It was a shame, because there was the germ of an interesting film here, with an especially interesting turn in the plot in the last third. How often do I say this, but it could have been good if it had been done properly. What a shame. I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film. She, especially, is very underrated (and is still particularly fit).<br /><br />If you want to see a good British revenge movie, rent or buy Shane Meadows' "Dead Man's Shoes". It is a little masterpiece. Last weekend I should have seen his "This Is England" instead. Ce sera sera...

Nothing's more enjoyable for me than a who-dun-it or suspense tale that keeps you guessing throughout as to how the whole thing will end. And that's precisely what happens in DEATHTRAP, based on a chilling play by Ira Levin ("Rosemary's Baby").<br /><br />And in it, MICHAEL CAINE and CHRISTOPHER REEVE get to do the kind of stunt that Caine and Laurence Olivier pulled off in SLEUTH--with just about as much skill and as many puzzles as ever existed in that extraordinarily clever play.<br /><br />But because it's meant to scare you, surprise you, and keep you guessing as to the outcome, it's difficult to write a review about the plot. Let's just say that what we know in the beginning is all you have to know about the film for the present. MICHAEL CAINE is an insanely jealous playwright whose latest play has failed miserably. When a young aspiring writer CHRISTOPHER REEVE sends him the manuscript of his play, Caine realizes that passing it off as his own would solve all his problems and get his reputation back.<br /><br />From that point on, it's a matter of fun and games for the audience as Ira Levin's story unwinds, managing to trump Agatha Christie for the number of twists.<br /><br />Caine and Reeve play off each other brilliantly, each bringing a certain dynamic tension to the tale as well as some humorous touches that come from a script that laces drama with humor.<br /><br />Summing up: Well worth seeing--but not everyone is pleased with the ending.

I can see where the film makers were going with this. But they never really reach their destination. It's supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti westerns albeit set in a sort of mythical modern time frame." But unfortunately it fall short in its attempt. It doesn't have that gritty realism that spaghetti westerns are known for. The characters are not vile and desperate enough like their Italian western counterparts. And, failing these two points, it lacks the humor of a successful parody. In fact it looks like they intended to make a serious film, but upon completion realized they had missed the mark so far that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they also missed the humor mark by a mile. A whole lotta bad movie!

As a Westerner watching another culture's view and tradition of marriag, I found Just Married mesmerizing and delightful. The idea of marrying a stranger through the mutual arrangement of parents is difficult, especially in this modern age. Yet this is the case in this Hindi film. Told with humor, and fresh perspective, we learn of Abhay and Ritika who have only met once and are now on their traditional five day honeymoon. As said, it is difficult to believe in this cell phone affluent age that such an archaic custom as an arranged marriage still take place. We see the awkwardness that this young couple feels as they come together on their first night, and how they try to forge a bond, even though they do not know one another. We see different views of marriage and commitment as presented by the other couples also on holiday, from a couple of forty years married to others still unsure of making marital commitment. There's song, witty dialog, poignant moments, blending and comparison of new ways and tradition. Watching the movie with subtitles definitely loses some of the trueness of the story, yet it is still a delight to watch. Granted some of the plot is a little trite and the bus incident a bit drawn out and contrived; however the overall movie was worth watching.

This movie is incredible. If you have the chance, watch it. Although, a warning, you'll cry your eyes out. I do, every time I see it, and I own it and have watched it many times. The performances are outstanding. It deals with darkness and pain and loss, but there is hope. This movie made me look at the world differently: vicarious experience, according to my English teacher. Also, if you've seen it, note the interesting use of shadows and light. Home room is a phenomenal movie, and I rate it 10/10 - for real - because of the excellent acting, amazing plot, and heart-wrenching dialogue. Very tense, very moving. Doesn't give all the answers, but makes many good points about humankind

...though for a film that seems to be trying to market itself as a horror, there was a distinct lack of blood.<br /><br />There was also a distinct lack of skilled directing, acting, editing, and script-writing.<br /><br />Jeremy London put in one of most appalling performances I've ever seen - his "descent into the maelström" of madness is achingly self-aware and clumsy. Oh look at him twitch! Oh look at him drink strong spirits! Oh look at him raise his brow, and cock his head at a jaunty angle! Oh look at his unwashed, greasy dark hair! Oh listen to his affectedly husky voice! He must be a tortured artist/writer/genius! Oh, yes, out comes the poet-shirt - it's another boy who thinks he's Byron. (Or Poe.) Oh for the love of... did someone give this guy a manual on "How To Act Good" or did they just pull him out of a cardboard box somewhere, the defunct little plastic toy-prize in a discontinued brand of bargain-bin cereal. Okay, that was a stupid line - but that's only because London's performance has melted my brain with its awfulness.<br /><br />Katherine Heigl is cute, and very briar rose, but has yet to grow into her acting shoes in this film - she delivered her lines like she was being held up, in fact, her whole performance was very wooden, her poses as stiff as her lines - who knows, perhaps she was just reacting to, and trying to neutralise, Jeremy London's flailing excesses, but if that's the case, she takes it too far.<br /><br />Notable is Arie Verveen as Poe - while his character's role is confused, he delivers the best performance of the piece. He, quite simply, looks right, but it's more than that - he has some sort of depth, I believed that he had a life beyond the dismal two-dimensional quality of the rest of the characters. Huh, maybe it's just because I like Poe, and could thus just let my mind wander and invent while he was on screen - whatever, he had an interest factor otherwise missing.<br /><br />The rest of the characters are a faceless blur - there are all the usual caricatures: the perky blonde best-friend who's a bit of a floozy; the smitten local cop who's a bit of a dork; the protective older man who perhaps has too much un-fatherly interest in our heroine; the scheming old witch, etc., etc., yawn, yawn. <br /><br />As with the 'distinct lack of blood for a horror movie' issue, none of the themes that they mention (and that London's character mentions - so scathingly - in his attack on Poe's writing) are followed through on. As another reviewer said - there was potential here: murder, incest, - genuinely shocking stuff, but instead they skirt away from the issues, and cut away from the violence (a raised candlestick swinging through the air - closing in on it's victim - then---cut to black! This is fine in a Noirish traditional horror, indeed, it's expected, and is fondly received when it happens - it's a dear convention, especially when accompanied by fake lightning bolts and intense Siouxie eye makeup - but in 'Descendant' it just comes across as clumsy, or as though the editor got queasy at the last minute and cut it out.) This could have either been a very tense psychological thriller - the horror of palingenesis/delusion/madness - or a simple (and fun) slasher movie: it tries to be both, or neither (something new and exciting!), but either way it fails dismally. The only horror element of this entire movie is it's epic dullness.<br /><br />I think the editor (if there was one at all) must have been drunk when s/he chopped this thing up - there are awkwardly foreshortened scenes; scenes that appeared to be out of order (but that could have just been the poor script). LIkewise the director & cinematographer - there were some very strange shots and framing that I think were meant to be tributes to Hitchcock or Browning, but just ended up looking silly (again, fine in a noir, but this was trying to be something else.)<br /><br />The whole thing perhaps may have been funny (in that way that previous reviewers have mentioned - "OMG how did this get made?!?") if I had been in the mood for some trash- bagging, unfortunately for me I had settled on the couch, with the lights down low, with the express intention of scaring myself silly - this is a very poor film, and I'm afraid I can't recommend it to people, not even for laughs.<br /><br />Please, please, don't waste your time or money on this - either borrow a real horror/thriller film, or find yourself a copy of Poe's fantastical tales, either way, you'll have a far more enjoyable and frightening night than you could ever hope to achieve with this rubbish.

Have just finished watching this film, which upset me greatly. Have also been to South Africa twice, around the time this film is set.<br /><br />It is certainly hard-hitting, and the opening scenes tend to 'set the scene'. The slow but steady increase of pace hardly allows a break, and there are certainly few light moments.<br /><br />Will never be able to view Nigel Hawthorne the same again. He came across as a very twisted individual, and I found myself disliking him more each time he appeared.<br /><br />Totally agree with Steve-thomp's articulate and well thought-out comments.