Datasets:

abhi227070

/

imdb-dataset

like 0

I really liked this Summerslam due to the look of the arena, the curtains and just the look overall was interesting to me for some reason. Anyways, this could have been one of the best Summerslam's ever if the WWF didn't have Lex Luger in the main event against Yokozuna, now for it's time it was ok to have a huge fat man vs a strong man but I'm glad times have changed. It was a terrible main event just like every match Luger is in is terrible. Other matches on the card were Razor Ramon vs Ted Dibiase, Steiner Brothers vs Heavenly Bodies, Shawn Michaels vs Curt Hening, this was the event where Shawn named his big monster of a body guard Diesel, IRS vs 1-2-3 Kid, Bret Hart first takes on Doink then takes on Jerry Lawler and stuff with the Harts and Lawler was always very interesting, then Ludvig Borga destroyed Marty Jannetty, Undertaker took on Giant Gonzalez in another terrible match, The Smoking Gunns and Tatanka took on Bam Bam Bigelow and the Headshrinkers, and Yokozuna defended the world title against Lex Luger this match was boring and it has a terrible ending. However it deserves 8/10

Not many television shows appeal to quite as many different kinds of fans like Farscape does...I know youngsters and 30/40+ years old;fans both Male and Female in as many different countries as you can think of that just adore this T.V miniseries. It has elements that can be found in almost every other show on T.V, character driven drama that could be from an Australian soap opera; yet in the same episode it has science fact & fiction that would give even the hardiest "Trekkie" a run for his money in the brainbender stakes! Wormhole theory, Time Travel in true equational form...Magnificent. It embraces cultures from all over the map as the possibilities are endless having multiple stars and therefore thousands of planets to choose from.<br /><br />With such a broad scope; it would be expected that nothing would be able to keep up the illusion for long, but here is where "Farscape" really comes into it's own element...It succeeds where all others have failed, especially the likes of Star Trek (a universe with practically zero Kaos element!) They ran out of ideas pretty quickly + kept rehashing them! Over the course of 4 seasons they manage to keep the audience's attention using good continuity and constant character evolution with multiple threads to every episode with unique personal touches to camera that are specific to certain character groups within the whole. This structure allows for an extremely large area of subject matter as loyalties are forged and broken in many ways on many many issues. I happened to see the pilot (Premiere) in passing and just had to keep tuning in after that to see if Crichton would ever "Get the girl", after seeing them all on television I was delighted to see them available on DVD & I have to admit that it was the only thing that kept me sane whilst I had to do a 12 hour night shift and developed chronic insomnia...Farscape was the only thing to get me through those extremely long nights...<br /><br />Do yourself a favour; Watch the pilot and see what I mean...<br /><br />Farscape Comet

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

Jane Austen would definitely approve of this one!<br /><br />Gwyneth Paltrow does an awesome job capturing the attitude of Emma. She is funny without being excessively silly, yet elegant. She puts on a very convincing British accent (not being British myself, maybe I'm not the best judge, but she fooled me...she was also excellent in "Sliding Doors"...I sometimes forget she's American ~!). <br /><br />Also brilliant are Jeremy Northam and Sophie Thompson and Phyllida Law (Emma Thompson's sister and mother) as the Bates women. They nearly steal the show...and Ms. Law doesn't even have any lines!<br /><br />Highly recommended.

Expectations were somewhat high for me when I went to see this movie, after all I thought Steve Carell could do no wrong coming off of great movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and Little Miss Sunshine. Boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />I'll start with what is right with this movie: at certain points Steve Carell is allowed to be Steve Carell. There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh, and it's due almost entirely to him being given the wiggle-room to do his thing. He's an undoubtedly talented individual, and it's a shame that he signed on to what turned out to be, in my opinion, a total train-wreck.<br /><br />With that out of the way, I'll discuss what went horrifyingly wrong.<br /><br />The film begins with Dan Burns, a widower with three girls who is being considered for a nationally syndicated advice column. He prepares his girls for a family reunion, where his extended relatives gather for some time with each other.<br /><br />The family is high atop the list of things that make this an awful movie. No family behaves like this. It's almost as if they've been transported from Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver. They are a caricature of what we think a family is when we're 7. It reaches the point where they become obnoxious and simply frustrating. Touch football, crossword puzzle competitions, family bowling, and talent shows ARE NOT HOW ACTUAL PEOPLE BEHAVE. It's almost sickening.<br /><br />Another big flaw is the woman Carell is supposed to be falling for. Observing her in her first scene with Steve Carell is like watching a stroke victim trying to be rehabilitated. What I imagine is supposed to be unique and original in this woman comes off as mildly retarded.<br /><br />It makes me think that this movie is taking place on another planet. I left the theater wondering what I just saw. After thinking further, I don't think it was much.

I've watched this movie on a fairly regular basis for most of my life, and it never gets old. For all the snide remarks and insults (mostly from David Spade), "Tommy Boy" has a giant heart. And that's what keeps this movie funny after all these years.<br /><br />Tommy Callahan (Chris Farley) is the son of Big Tom Callahan (Brian Dennehy), master car parts salesman, and has ridden on that all his life. But after his died dies on his wedding day, Tommy learns that the company is in debt, and about to be bought by Ray Zalinsky (Dan Akroyd), the owner of a huge car parts company. So in order to save the company, Tommy has to go on the road to sell the company's new brake pads. Along for the ride, though not by choice, is Richard Hayden (David Spade) a former classmate of Tommy's who was Big Tom's right-hand man.<br /><br />The movie rides on the chemistry between the two SNL stars (and real-life best friends) Chris Farley and David Spade. The duo has enough comic energy going between them to power the world. It's the big, dumb guy versus the smart little guy. It works, and some of their scenes are unforgettably funny. Farley and Spade are actually decent dramatic actors as well. Although the film is primarily a comedy, it has its fair share of drama, but Spade and especially Farley are just as good there as when they're making the audience laugh.<br /><br />Forgive me, but I have to talk about Chris Farley a little more. I read his biography ("The Chris Farley Show: A Biography in Three Acts," for anyone who cares), and understanding who Chris was in real life made this movie more special to me. Chris Farley was a genuinely good person who struggled, and ultimately failed to conquer his addictions. Although this was the first movie he had a major role in, it is his best film. It really showed who he was, and just how much talent he had. Knowing Chris's story adds another layer to this movie, although it doesn't make it any less funny.<br /><br />Farley and Spade are matched with a good on screen cast. Rob Lowe is suitably slimy as Tommy's "new brother," and Bo Derek is solid as his step-mother. Brian Dennehy is great as Big Tom. Dennehy makes it easy to believe that they're father in son. Big Tom is just as crazy as his son, although he's smarter and more mature. Dan Akroyd gives one of his best performances as Zalinsky, giving Tommy the hard truth behind advertising. Julie Warner is also good as Tommy's love interest, Michelle.<br /><br />For me, Peter Segal is one of the great comedy directors. He keeps the pace quick and energetic, but most importantly, he knows how to make comedy funny. He doesn't belabor the jokes, and he understands that funny actors know what they're doing and he allows them to do it. But Segal goes a step further. He gives "Tommy Boy" a friendly, almost nostalgic tone that both tugs the heartstrings (genuinely) and tickles the funnybone.<br /><br />Critics didn't like "Tommy Boy." Shame on them. A movie doesn't have to be super sophisticated or subversively intellectual to be funny (God forbid Farley and Spade were forced to do muted comedy a la "The Office"). This is a great movie and one of my all-time favorites.

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

Okay, I didn't get the Purgatory thing the first time I watched this episode. It seemed like something significant was going on that I couldn't put my finger on. This time those Costa Mesa fires on TV really caught my attention- and it helped that I was just writing an essay on Inferno! But let me see what HASN'T been discussed yet...<br /><br />A TWOP review mentioned that Tony had 7 flights of stairs to go down because of the broken elevator. Yeah, 7 is a significant number for lots of reasons, especially religious, but here's one more for ya. On a hunch I consulted wikipedia, and guess what Dante divided into 7 levels? Purgatorio. Excluding ante-Purgatory and Paradise. (The stuff at the bottom of the stairs and... what Tony can't get to.) <br /><br />On to the allegedly "random" monk-slap scene. As soon as the monks appeared, it fit perfectly in place with Tony trying to get out of Purgatory. You can tell he got worried when that Christian commercial (death, disease, and sin) came on, and he's getting more and more desperate because Christian heaven is looking kinda iffy for him. By the time he meets the monks he's thinking "hey maybe these guys can help me?" which sounds like contemplating other religions (e.g. Buddhism) and wondering if some other path could take him to "salvation". Not that Tony is necessarily literally thinking about becoming a Buddhist, but it appears Finnerty tried that (and messed up). That slap in the face basically tells Tony there's no quick fix- as in, no, you can't suddenly embrace Buddhism and get out of here. <br /><br />Tony was initially not too concerned about getting to heaven. But at the "conference entrance", he realizes that's not going to be so easy for him. At first I saw the name vs. driver's license problem as Tony having led sort of a double life, what with the killing people and sleeping around that he kept secret from most people. He feels free to have an affair with quasi-Melfi because "he's Kevin Finnerty". He figures out that he CAN fool some people with KF's cards, like hotel receptionists, but it won't get him out of Purgatory. Those helicopters- the helicopters of Heaven?- are keeping track of him and everything he does.<br /><br />After reading all the theories on "inFinnerty", though, it seems like KF's identity is a reminder of the infinite different paths Tony could've taken in his life. Possibly along with the car joke involving Infiniti's that made no sense to me otherwise. Aaaand at that point my brain fizzles out.

I was very disappointed with this series. It had lots of cool graphics and that's about it. The level of detail it went into was minimal, and I always got the feeling the audience was being patronized -- there was a lot of what seemed to me as "This is extremely cool but we're not going to explain it in further detail because you won't get it anyway. Let's just show you some pretty pictures to entertain you." The host would drop interesting-sounding words such as "sparticles" and "super-symmetry" without any attempt at explaining what it was. We had to look it up on Wikipedia.<br /><br />Furthermore, I know quite a bit about superstrings (for a layman) and I found their explanations were convoluted and could have been so much better. They could have chosen MUCH better examples to explain concepts, but instead, the examples they used were confusing and further obscured the subject.<br /><br />Additionally, I got so sick of the repetitiveness. They could easily have condensed the series into one episode if they had cut out all the repetition. They must have shown the clips of the Quantum Café about 8 times. The host kept saying the same things over and over and over again. I can't remember how many times he said "The universe is made out of tiny little vibrating strings." It's like they were trying to brainwash us into just accepting "superstrings are the best thing since sliced bread."<br /><br />Finally, the show ended off with an unpleasant sense of a "competition" between Fermilab and CERN, clearly biased towards Fermilab. This is supposed to be an educational program about quantum physics, not about whether the US is better than Europe or vice versa! I also felt that was part of the patronizing -- "Audiences need to see some conflict to remain interested." Please. Give me a little more credit than that.<br /><br />Overall, 2 thumbs down :-(

The first 30 minutes of Tinseltown had my finger teetering on the remote, poised to flick around to watch something else. The premise of two writers, down on their luck, living in a self-storage-space "bin" was mildly amusing, but, painfully bland.<br /><br />The introduction of the character, played by Joe Pantoliano - the big deal movie guy, that lives in the park and sleeps in a lavatory, offered hope and I decided to give it a few more minutes. And then a few more until Kristy Swansons introduction as a budding film director & borderline nymphomaniac, added a bit of spice. Her solid acting performance raised her presence above and beyond just a very welcome eye-candy inclusion.<br /><br />Ultimately, the obvious low-budget impacts on the film with poorly shot scenes, stuttured pace and slapstick handling of certain moments. Some of my favourite movies of all time have been low budget, Whithnail & I being one that also deals with 2 guys with a dream, but down on their luck.<br /><br />However, for my money, the actors save Tinseltown from the "Terrible movie" archives and just about nudges it into the "could have been a cult movie" archives. I laughed out loud at some of the scenes involving Joe Pantoliano's character. In particular, the penultimate scenes in the terribly clichéd, but still funny, rich-but-screwed-up characters house, where the story unravels towards it's final moments.<br /><br />I can see how Tinseltown was a great stage play and while the film-makers did their best to translate this to celluloid, it simply didn't work and while I laughed out loud at some of scenes and one liners, I think the first 30 minutes dulled my senses and expectations to such a degree I would have laughed at anything.<br /><br />Unless you're stuck for a novelty coffee coaster, don't pick this up if you see it in a bargain bucket.

jeez, this was immensely boring. the leading man (Christian Schoyen) has got to be the worst actor i have ever seen. and another thing, if the character in the movie moved to America when he was ten or something and had been living here for over 20 years, he would speak a lot better English than what he pulls of here. or to say it in my own Language "Skikkelig gebrokkent". But it is cool to see Norwegian dudes in a movie made in Hollywood. it was just a damn shame they were talentless hacks. The storyline itself is below mediocre. I have a suspicion that Christian Schoyen did this movie just to live the dream, as he clearly does in the film by humping one beautiful babe after another.

Great just great! The West Coast got "Dirty" Harry Callahan, the East Coast got Sharky. Burt Reynolds plays Sharky in "Sharky's Machine" and I enjoyed every minute of it. Playing a maverick narcotics cop in Atlanta, GA is just what everyone wants. Instead of suspension, he's sent to vice squad. Like in the Dirty Harry movies or any other cop movies, the captain is always going to be the jerk. When I was a kid, I was curious what that movie meant "Sharky's Machine". Well I knew who played Sharky, I wonder what his machine was. It was his GROUP of fellow cops. After uncovering the murder, he goes all out to find the perp. When it turns out to be a big time mob boss, Sharky doesn't play around. When he gets the other prostitute into safety, Sharky fights back hard and good despite losing a finger to the thug. And I also like the part where the bad gets blown out of the building through a plate glass window. That was the BOMB! Randy Crawford's "Street Life" really put the movie in the right mood, and the movie itself is really a great hit to me, ALWAYS! Rating 4 out of 5 stars.

It's made in 2007 and the CG is bad for a movie made in 1998. At one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good, but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the CG stuff look even worse.<br /><br />The writing, acting, directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. This is as bad as, if not worse than Raptor Island and 100 million BC... pure crap! Again, as with the other movies, the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci-fi channel.<br /><br />I still can't understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie.<br /><br />For those of you who are unsure, the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review... or he is one of the people who worked on this movie.

This movie stinks majorly. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because the graphics were semi charming. It's total disregard for a plot and the lack of even insubstantial surface character development made it seem like just a bunch of nice drawings. This is by far THE worse anime that came out of Japan. I can't believe they actually put their names on this garbage. What a rip off selling this thing for $20. If you haven't seen this don't bother. If you have, I pity you.

We can start with the wooden acting but this film is a disaster. Having grown up in NY I can tell you that this film is an insult to anyone who is familiar with the community or the people. I'm not even a defender of the culture in any way and found this to be a Hollywoodized piece of trash to fit its own fictional, ridiculous culture presentation and language that anyone who watches Seinfeld knows is inaccurate. This is a colossal waste of time and, even worse, is not exactly interesting since the outcome is obvious and the scenes of confrontation are laughably bad. Who acts this way? Nobody.<br /><br />The writer's name sounds Israeli or something of that nature but it is clear he doesn't have a clue about the subject he is writing about. Looking at his bio, it is shocking he lived in New York and wonder how much real connection he had with the community. Even mediocre films like "A Stranger Among Us" are better and more closer to the truth than this dreck. Reading this guy's credits it's no wonder he has written scripts on all C grade films that somehow feature stars. shocking. Perhaps he knows someone because this script is even below par for a bad Dolph Lundgren film.

This movie starts off somewhat slowly and gets running towards the end. Not that that is bad, it was done to illustrate character trait degression of the main character. Consequently, if you are not into tragedies, this is not your movie. It is the thought provoking philosophy of this movie that makes it worthwhile. If you liked Dostoyevsky's 'Crime and Punishment," you will probably like this if only for the comparisons. The intriguing question that the movie prompts is, "What is it that makes a renowned writer completely disregard his publicly-aproved ideas for another set?" The new ideas are quite opposed to the status quo-if you are a conservative you will not like this movie. <br /><br />Besides other philosophical questions, I must admit that the movie was quite aesthetically pleasing as well. The grassy hillsides and beautiful scenery helped me get past the slow start. Also, there was use of coloric symbolism in representing the mindstate of the main characters. If these sorts of things do not impress you, skip it. Overall I give this movie a 7.

This is a slightly uneven entry with one standout sequence involving an over-the-hill gang reminiscing in the diner that once - thirty years previously - was their hideout; one ho-hum duologue between two ageing rock musos; a noirish kidnap turned on its head and an opening sequence (plus epilogue) involving heist artist wannabe Edward Baer and current 'hot' property Anna Magloulis which has its moments. No movie in which Jean Rochefort appears can be dismissed lightly and here he shines as one of the over-the-hill quintet, indeed the film is worth seeing for Rochefort alone but each of the sequences has something to offer and it's definitely worth a look.

I was first introduced to John Waters films by seeing "Female trouble" on IFC. I was disgusted but for some sick reason i enjoyed it. Then, i picked up the Pink Flamingos DVD in the John Waters Boxed Set. The movie is about Babs Johnson "The Filthiest Person Alive" who lives in a trailer in Maryland with her obese egg obsessed mother,and her deranged son "Crackers". In the movie you will see such sick sights as sex with chickens, drag-queens, people eating feces, torture, and all other sorts of random humiliation. The film has a soundtrack from 60's rock and roll artists. The only problem is that some parts of the film seem to drag on and can get a little boring. I found "Female Trouble" a little more fun. Rated NC-17 for Explicit sex, violence, and disturbing images. Enjoy.

This movie has very good acting by virtually all the cast, a gripping story with a chilling ending, great music, and excellent visuals without significant special effects. It is interesting to note though that, like so much science fiction, its predictions for the future don't appear likely to come to pass as early as depicted. That's not to say we're out of the woods yet, but 2022 is now obviously too soon to be in this condition. It shares this failing with a fairly illustrious list of science fiction classics: "1984", "2001: A Space Odyssey (compare its space station with our International Space Station) and Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" (positronic brains were to have been invented in the 1990's).

I can't help but notice the negative reviews this movie has gotten. To be honest, I saw the preview for this movie, and the premise looked intrigued me. Yes, I rented it after reading others' comments. They are correct in that some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They are also correct that one of the best performances of this movie was that of Dr. Graves.<br /><br />Also interesting is Scott Clark, who plays Grant, the kid in the wheelchair. I identify with the character he played, perhaps because I am in a wheelchair.<br /><br />This movie is certainly worth your looking at.

The production quality, cast, premise, authentic New England (Waterbury, CT?) locale and lush John Williams score should have resulted in a 3-4 star collectors item. Unfortunately, all we got was a passable 2 star "decent" flick, mostly memorable for what it tried to do.........bring an art house style film mainstream. The small town locale and story of ordinary people is a genre to itself, and if well done, will satisfy most grownups. Jane Fonda was unable to hide her braininess enough to make her character believable. I wondered why she wasn't doing a post doctorate at Yale instead of working in a dead end factory job in Waterbury. Robert DiNiro's character was just a bit too contrived. An illiterate, nice guy loser who turns out to actually be, with a little help from Jane's character, a 1990 version of Henry Ford or Thomas Edison.<br /><br />This genre has been more successfully handled by "Nobody's Fool" in the mid 90s and this year's (2003) "About Schmidt." I wish that the main stream studios would try more stuff for post adolescents and reserve a couple of screens at the multi cinema complexes for those efforts.<br /><br />I'll give it an "A" for effort.

I've never really been sure whether I liked this documentary or not. It was shown on Channel 4 before a cut down version of Revelations, and is on the Revelations video tape before the uncut show. The documentary is basically friends of Bill saying how great he was for an hour with video clips of the show mixed in, a bit like a trailer for the film you're about to watch. It also features David Letterman grovelling like a worm for dumping Bill off the his show before he died, the reason? Bill made a joke about how Pro-Life people should picket funerals, and Letterman had Pro-life advertising. Anyway look out for the video as Revelations is Bill at his ranting best :)

Send them to the freezer. This is the solution two butchers find after they discover the popularity of selling human flesh. An incredible story with humor and possible allegories that make it much more than a horror film. The complex characters defy superficial classification and make the story intriguing and worthwhile - if you can stand it. Definitely a dark film but also a bit redemptive.

This movie was released originally as a soft "X", apparently with the explicit sex deleted. Later, the producers "relented" (smelled money) and re-released it with the excised scenes restored (apparently only about 3 minutes). I guess since Kristine was of age, it was held against her and her promising career came grinding to a halt. I guess its all in the timing (witness Pam Anderson's career)--but Ronald Reagan was in charge during Kristine's debacle (we had not heard about Nancy Reagan's affairs), Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski were in full swing during Pam's "coming out".<br /><br />The sex is just icing on the cake, both version satisfy. This naughty musical is way above similar of others that were released at the same time.

With all this stuff going down at the moment with MJ i've started listening to his music, watching the odd documentary here and there, watched The Wiz and watched Moonwalker again. Maybe i just want to get a certain insight into this guy who i thought was really cool in the eighties just to maybe make up my mind whether he is guilty or innocent. Moonwalker is part biography, part feature film which i remember going to see at the cinema when it was originally released. Some of it has subtle messages about MJ's feeling towards the press and also the obvious message of drugs are bad m'kay.<br /><br />Visually impressive but of course this is all about Michael Jackson so unless you remotely like MJ in anyway then you are going to hate this and find it boring. Some may call MJ an egotist for consenting to the making of this movie BUT MJ and most of his fans would say that he made it for the fans which if true is really nice of him.<br /><br />The actual feature film bit when it finally starts is only on for 20 minutes or so excluding the Smooth Criminal sequence and Joe Pesci is convincing as a psychopathic all powerful drug lord. Why he wants MJ dead so bad is beyond me. Because MJ overheard his plans? Nah, Joe Pesci's character ranted that he wanted people to know it is he who is supplying drugs etc so i dunno, maybe he just hates MJ's music.<br /><br />Lots of cool things in this like MJ turning into a car and a robot and the whole Speed Demon sequence. Also, the director must have had the patience of a saint when it came to filming the kiddy Bad sequence as usually directors hate working with one kid let alone a whole bunch of them performing a complex dance scene.<br /><br />Bottom line, this movie is for people who like MJ on one level or another (which i think is most people). If not, then stay away. It does try and give off a wholesome message and ironically MJ's bestest buddy in this movie is a girl! Michael Jackson is truly one of the most talented people ever to grace this planet but is he guilty? Well, with all the attention i've gave this subject....hmmm well i don't know because people can be different behind closed doors, i know this for a fact. He is either an extremely nice but stupid guy or one of the most sickest liars. I hope he is not the latter.

I went to see Hamlet because I was in between jobs. I figured 4 hours would be great, I've been a fan of Branagh; Dead Again, Henry V. I was completely overwhelmed by the direction, acting, cinematography that this film captured. Like other reviews the 4 hours passes swiftly. Branagh doesn't play Hamlet, he is Hamlet, he was born for this. When I watch this film I'm constantly trying to find faults, I've looked at the goofs and haven't noticed them. How he was able to move the camera in and out of the Hall with all the mirrors is a mystery to me. This movie was shot in 70 mil. It's a shame that Columbia hasn't released a Widescreen version of this on VHS. I own a DVD player, and I'd take this over Titanic any day. So Columbia if you're listening put this film out the way it should be watched! And I don't know what happened at the Oscars. This should have swept Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Direction, best cinematography. What films were they watching? I felt sorry for Branagh at the Oscars when he did a tribute to Shakespeare on the screen. They should have been giving a tribute to Branagh for bringing us one of the greatest films of all time.

After three outstanding BBC television series' and a Christmas special, the bizarre and grotesque (yet perversely lovable) characters of bleak fictional town Royston Vasey make the jump to celluloid, along with their creators - The League of Gentlemen. <br /><br />Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith are the more familiar three-quarters of the foursome, with the central roles shared between the trio. In an added twist, the final member of the team - Jeremy Dyson - is portrayed by actor Michael Sheen. <br /><br />Where to start? Dyson (Sheen) is in conversation with his writing cohorts, when - horror of horrors - he is paid a visit by two of his grisliest characters. Both Tubbs (Pemberton) and Edward Tattsyrup (Shearsmith) are unhappy at The League's decision to kill off the Vasey inhabitants. "You're not real!" screams Dyson in vain, as the local shopkeepers from hell exact their revenge. Mayhem ensues, as reality and Vasey converge with the vast array of characters entering our world to save theirs. <br /><br />Confused? You will be, as the camp, innuendo-ridden Teutonic, Herr Lipp (Pemberton) is forced to take on the daily guise of Pemberton (Pemberton), while Pemberton (Pemberton) is kidnapped by cannibalistic butcher Hillary Briss (Gatiss) and Geoff Tipps (Shearsmith). <br /><br />With shades of an even more demented Misery, Briss attempts to force Pemberton to rewrite the film - thus continuing his life - but leaving Geoff in charge is never a good idea. The erstwhile comedian becomes embroiled in The League's latest, post-Vasey adventure - The King's Evil - entering a typically twisted 17th century England, complete with cameos from Victoria Wood, Peter Kay and David Warner. Known as George of Asda (due to his select line of clothing), Geoff saves the day and is treated as a hero, but for the denouement of the film, he joins characters old and new at the Church of Royston Vasey to meet with their makers. <br /><br />For fans of the series, the film is a must-see. And yes, it does feature Papa Lazarou (albeit a little too fleetingly). Pen-loving Pauline, Mickey, Barbara and cursed vet Matthew Chinnery are some of the other favourites on show, and The League's portrayal of themselves (plus Sheen's as Dyson) is also a fascinating insight. <br /><br />The League of Gentlemen are the Radiohead of British comedy - they are ambitious, groundbreaking (witness the excellent Series Three) and not happy to rest on their laurels. They also divide opinion accordingly.<br /><br />Certainly, their macabre sense of humour is not for every palate, and while not written exclusively for 'fans', a grasp of the storyline would benefit those who have previously viewed the series. Nevertheless, Apocalypse is a film in its own right and The League will no doubt manage to attract a new breed of fan, as well as appeasing and pleasing existing ones.

The film is hugely enjoyable with a great cast, and excellent direction by James Eves. The movie is entertaining with a very charismatic performance from Stephanie Beecham and everyone is perfectly cast. James Eves has a good eye for casting and directs like a conductor knowing exactly when to crank up the action, fall and then rise to a climax. He does this with an element of humour, Plenty of twists, thrills and blood. This is a return of the old vampire movie, with loads of gore, blood and screams. The movie works at a great speed and the characters take you on a terrific adventure,but what makes it work is that the film doesn't take itself too seriously with plenty of tongue in cheek action.Great !

I'm writing this note as a chess player as well as as a movie viewer. I watched the 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue games on the Internet. I know something about the issues that were raised. Other chess players will come along and want to know whether this movie is worth seeing/buying, and I'm talking largely to them. However, I'll try not to ignore those who aren't "into chess".<br /><br />This movie is about the 1997 match between Garry Kasparov and the custom-built computer "Deep Blue". However, the first image you see in the movie is not of Kasparov, or of the computer, but of "THE TURK". This is an "automaton" which was built in Europe at the turn of the 18th-19th century and played winning chess against all comers. I put the word "automaton" in quotes because it was, as everyone now knows, a fake. There was a man inside it.<br /><br />If you don't like seeing "THE TURK", then you won't be able to stand the movie, because "THE TURK" has as much screen time as Kasparov, maybe more, both in modern footage and in b/w footage from some old movie. The reappearance of "THE TURK" every few seconds underscores Kasparov's charge that "Deep Blue" had human assistance - that it was (to some degree) a fake computer, that IBM cheated, that there was "a man inside it" working behind the scenes to help it win. Not only does Kasparov believe this, but the filmmakers seem to believe it too. And so this is not really much of a movie about chess games or about programming chess computers. It is a propaganda piece about a big corporation supposedly misusing a helpless grandmaster. Really it is a lot like a "negative campaign ad", as it is chock full of ominous music and evocative camera work and spooky sound effects and innuendos ("we never found out what was behind that locked door") and the ever-present "TURK".<br /><br />Now, most people in the chess community are pretty much convinced that IBM did not cheat and that this was Garry's paranoia at work. To start with, in order for a human to help "Deep Blue" beat Kasparov, it would seem that you would need a human who was better than "Deep Blue" AND better than Kasparov. Since there was no such person, the whole idea is a bit suspect from the start. Furthermore, by the time this movie was made, there were computer programs that could run on your PC that could beat strong grandmasters. Today, much more than in 1997, we take it for granted that a computer can do things you might not expect. And we are less likely to take it as a monumental human tragedy that a computer beat a guy in chess. (And in fact, the bottom line is that Kasparov beat himself with two bad mistakes, including resigning game 2 in a drawn position.) <br /><br />As for the chess games, you actually see very little of them. There are a few comments from masters and commentators that tell briefly how they went, but really you don't get to see hardly any of the strategy or tactics at all. Naturally as a chess player I take this as a major shortcoming, but I think that non-players are being cheated too. Imagine a baseball movie, for example, where you don't hardly get to see any of the game - just a commentator telling you that "in Game Four, the White Sox defeated the Astros with such and such a score." Nobody would make a movie like that. But here, for example, we are told that Kasparov made a bad blunder in the opening of the decisive game 6, but we aren't shown the position on the screen, or told why it was a blunder, or what he should have done instead, or anything. We just see a few seconds of Kasparov holding his head in his hands, and then more atmospheric sound effects and camera work.<br /><br />(Since I saw this on DVD, let me warn chess players about the DVD as well. The jacket promises you that the Extras include the games "with analysis". Is this grandmaster analysis, which people like us might find interesting? NO! It is the automated computer voice synthesizer analysis from some version of Chessmaster, that tells you when a piece is attacked and a pawn gets isolated and that you are in the "Caro-Kann Defense, Main Line". Blahhhh.) <br /><br />Someone might then come along and say, "Well, clearly this movie is meant to dramatize the match for the non-player, and so it's unfair to be impatient with it." But actually it doesn't do a very good job of reaching out to the non-player either - it skates over some points that a true novice would really want to have explained. For example it says that Kasparov could have gotten "perpetual check" in the second game, but it doesn't explain what that is (or show what it would have looked like on the board, which would have been interesting). It flashes back to the Kasparov-Karpov matches but doesn't explain why there were two of them or who organized them etc. I didn't need this information myself, but I'm familiar with it. If you don't already have chess experience, there are places where you are going to be confused, and this is just a defect in the film.<br /><br />Ultimately I can't recommend the movie, which, like "THE TURK" itself, is not what it purports to be (a documentary) but more of a stage illusion.

Three kids are born during a solar eclipse and turn into vile murderous little tykes who're above suspicion by everyone, save for Joyce (Lori Lethin) and her younger brother Timmy. That's the story in a nutshell. The acting in this one is tolerable for the most part. Notable for MTV-J Julie Brown (not the 'Downtown' one) showing some skin, and a very early part (albiet small) for Michael Dudikoff. Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but in the 'killer kids' sub-genre it's a bit of a guilty pleasure.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Julie Brown shows T&A (the only film thus far, to claim that honor); Sylvia Wright gets topless <br /><br />DVD Extras (R1): 16 minute interview with Producer Max Rosenberg (wherein he insults the director AND Canada, great stuff); Biography of Ed Hunt; and trailers for "Kiss of the Taratula", "Don't open the Door", & a red-band one for "Homework" (which features nudity) <br /><br />My Grade: B-

Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.

This film, won't win any awards for greatness. But if you have an hour and a half free and fancy a bit of light hearted entertainment then you could do much worse than watch this...<br /><br />The cast are mostly young and pretty, the script has some genuinely funny moments and the soundtrack is pretty cool too. Rupert Penry-Jones as Jake seems to have the most fun, while Laura Fraser as Justine is sweet, likable and funny.<br /><br />I rented it because I like the series 'Spooks' that RPJ is currently starring in. And here he's young and buff and the perfect eye candy for a girls night in.<br /><br />Get some wine and some ice cream and have a chuckle.

If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.<br /><br />In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!<br /><br />

I clerk in a video store, so I try to see the movies we're about to put out each week. I don't have a problem with this; in fact, I sort of feel it's a privilege. Not so with this film . . . After an hour and a half of our hero whining and growling his way through scene after scene, I was truly wondering if they planned to get to the point. I felt like I should be getting paid for watching this at home, in my free time. And if I'd known there was another hour to be endured, I might have given up right then. I didn't care about the characters, the filming was unremarkable, and Ford made kissing look like a chore. Even the score was incongruous and jarring. What a waste.

Definitely one of the lesser of the Astaire/Rogers musicals. It's just very poorly plotted and paced. It only runs a few minutes longer than Swing Time, for example, but it feels a heck of a lot longer. This is partly due to the secondary romance between Randolph Scott and Harriet Hilliard. Scott is rarely ever interesting. I like Hilliard. She's sweet, and I love at least one of her songs, "But Where Are You?" ("Get Thee Behind Me Satan", her other number, is a weak leftover from Top Hat, thankfully cut from that masterpiece). Follow the Fleet would actually be a bad film if not for at least three brilliant dance sequences between Astaire and Rogers. The dancing contest vies for the top spot of any of their numbers. The dance is just fantastic. "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket" presents the two rehearsing a dance that they don't quite have perfected yet. Its imperfections make it all the more perfect. And "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is easily one of Irving Berlin's best songs. So the film is well worth watching for its great moments.

Gwoemul (The Host) - Due to pollution in the Han river a mutated beast goes on the rampage. The youngest member of the Park family is snatched by the beast, and it is up to the rest of her family to find her, before she becomes the beast's latest meal.<br /><br />Firstly, I love monster movies: Mutated bears, over-sized alligators, packs of ravening Komodo dragons, the whole lot. Creature features are my favourite kind of Horror film. So, I really wanted to like The Host, but it wasn't to be. <br /><br />There were three major problems with it:<br /><br />The first can be seen with a quick look at it's IMDb page<br /><br />Genre: Action / Comedy / Drama / Fantasy / Horror / Sci-Fi / Thriller<br /><br />Too many damned genres. It took itself too seriously to be a comedy, and yet was too light hearted to have any real message (though it did seem to be trying to make some kind of statement. Anti-pollution, anti-American or anti-government). The drama was misplaced and mixed in a confusing mish-mash with all the other styles.<br /><br />Secondly, after the initial monster attack nothing happens for almost the entire film. The central family wander about looking for one of their own while the governments of Korea and America, apparently, do nothing. And that's it, they just wander about, occasionally hitting one another, presumably for a bit of comedy relief. This lack of action made my attention wander, and apparently it did the same for the director, as whole plot threads go unresolved (a mystery plague invented by the evil Americans is completely forgotten about, and is never resolved).<br /><br />And lastly, the film is clumsily political. It paints the Americans as being stupid and evil, but gives us no American characters with any more depth than a cartoon villain. The opening scene has the most obvious stupid American vs wise Korean moment. With a Korean morgue assistant asking his boss, the coroner, not to pour chemicals into the Han river. The American coroner all but cackles maniacally as he orders the assistant to carry on. As well as being racist, it's lazy film-making and there is no excuse for that.<br /><br />On the plus side, the monster is good, kind of a mix of The Relic and Deep Rising. Some of the movement effects are quite cool, and the initial monster chase through the park is a lot of fun. There are also some nice shots in the film. Some of which remind me, strangely, of the way Firefly was filmed (shuddering cameras, out of focus shots etc).There is also a nice scene at the end, where the hero and a little boy he has saved are sitting in the family's mobile food stall. It's night-time and snow is falling, the street-lamp is giving out a cold light, but the food stall has a warm glow coming from it.<br /><br />Overall, I was really disappointed by this film. I'd been looking forward to a decent creature flick, and instead I get some pseudo-political,horror-comedy lite. Looking at the comments on IMDb I can't help but think that if this had been a US production it would have been slated. Just 'cause it's a foreign flick doesn't mean it's any good. There have been some great movies out of Korea in recent years (The vengeance trilogy and Brotherhood, for example), but this certainly isn't one of them. <br /><br />For once I'm in favour of a remake. Tighten up the directing, improve the scripting and this could have been a nice film. As it is, it's not worth a couple of hours of anyone's time.

I confess to have quite an uneasy feeling about ghosts movies, and while I sometimes enjoy the genre when it comes to horror, but when it comes to comedies, they really need to be crazy to be funny. 'Over Her Dead Body' seems to take afterlife a little bit too seriously, and fails in my opinion from almost any aspect I can think about. The story is completely unbelievable of course, and did not succeed to convince me either in the comic or in the sentimental register. The choice of the principal actresses was awful. While Paul Rudd is at least handsome and looks like a nice guy, the taste in ladies of his character seems to need serious improvement as Eva Longoria seems too aged (sorry) for him, and Lake Bell seems too unattractive (sorry again). A romantic story without good enough reason for romance is due to failure from start. Jason Biggs and Lindsey Sloane were actually better but they had only supporting roles. The rest is uninteresting and uninspired, with flat cinematography and cheap gags borrowed from unsuccessful TV comedies. Nothing really worth watching, nothing to remember.

This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police. <br /><br />Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.<br /><br />Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity

I saw this movie just recently, and I said to myself: "This movie is bad!" William Shatner is a great actor, but he is no director! <br /><br />It's not just that the acting is bad, it's terrible. And instead of a plot, we have a very bad storyline that is called a plot! What I really thought was bad was at the beginning where Kirk and McCoy were teaching Spock how to sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat!"<br /><br />Do I have something against William Shatner? I do not. But when it comes to being a director, he sucks! This film is not one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But it is the worst of the Star Trek series! <br /><br />I noticed that after this Shatner did not return to direct another film in the series. They apparently did not want him to direct another film again after this happened! <br /><br />Overall, this movie sucks! <br /><br />2/10

With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.

If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.<br /><br />Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad".<br /><br />Yes it could.<br /><br />I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie.

Though I can't claim to be a comic book fanatic, I have read my share, so I guess I'm part of the audience of this film, and I wasn't disappointed. It does run out of steam near the end, it's almost overflowing with ideas, and it seems like Lena Olin, one of my favorite actresses, was left on the cutting room floor. Also, a little of Hank Azaria's Blue Raja can go a long way. Still, it's easy to forgive all of these faults when you have a film which is this much fun. All the actors seem to be having a blast with their roles, especially William H. Macy as the straight-arrow Shoveler, and Janeane Garofalo as The Bowler. And unlike some, I found the design of the city to make the joke even funnier. I also liked how disco was the music of choice of the bad guys; somehow, it seemed appropriate.

It wasn't notable enough to be truly horrible, it was just incredibly lame. The story was not half bad, but the execution was just horrendous.<br /><br />To start with, it moved too fast for us to emotionally get involved with what was going on. It was just paced badly. The dialog was so utterly un-sparkling, just flat and boring.<br /><br />And the characters, cripes almightly, they made Deadpool boring. How the hell do you make Deadpool boring? He wasn't even funny. He wasn't crazy. He was just an annoying guy with a couple of swords he did not even know how to use properly.<br /><br />Gambit was boring. And since when did he have telekenisis to make the cards just float and fly around, or super strength to leap hundreds of feet into the air? And what the heck was up with all the stupid helicopter moves? I mean, we know they are mutants, but they still exist within the realm of physics. A round bo staff is not a helicopter blade, you cannot fly by twirling super-duper fast. Which Gambit wouldn't be able to do anyway. Nor Deadpool, especially when using it as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />And this film stands as proof that wire work should only be used by fight coordinators who know WTH they are doing, and know better than to use it in every. single. shot. as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />Three of the most physical fighters in Marvel comics (Logan, Creed, and Wilson), and some of the worst fight choreography I have ever seen in recent film memory. It was as if the stunt coordinator just shrugged his shoulders and left it all up to the special effects guys.<br /><br />And then you had the break out, with all these mutants who did nothing. Even mutants who had been shown in their cells to have powers (nice to see a Quicksilver nod), did f-all when they got out. Only Emma-really-lame-for-this-film-Frost and Cyclops did something.<br /><br />And since when was Logan so pretty? And the stupid, "The bullet will take his memory away." Don't you think Xavier and the X-Men would have noticed the big freaking bullet holes in his adamantium skull when they X-rayed him in X1? I felt sorry for Liev Schrieber man, he actually brought in a good Sabretooth considering the script. He made one of Marvel's more simple super villains feel real. But he could not save the film from it's own epic lameness.<br /><br />Seriously, this was "Daredevil" level of suck. Decent story, good actors, absolutely horrible execution.

This unpleasant film has little to recommend it. Dolph Lundgren gives a performance that is better than either this script or his other action films have allowed. And there are occasional snippets of dialog that suggest the film might have been able to provide some insight into a bizarre subculture.<br /><br />But no. Motivations are either murky or trite. Most of the acting is sub-par. The script creates needless confusion. And the director's needless fascination with focusing on gore is distracting.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine who the audience is for this film.

This is an excellent film, with an extraordinary cast and acting. I was very disappointed with the Academy Awards when this didn't get the Oscar for best film and for best actress (Woopi Goldberg)... it certainly deserved it. In any case, take a look at it. i am sure you will enjoy it very much.

I too was fortunate enough to see "Checking Out" with Peter Falk at The Phoenix Film Festival. This is an extremely sweet character driven film that leaves the audience enthralled in the Applebaum's plight in life. More than funny, each character in the family contributes priceless comic relief that not only spurs laughter but inspires a few joyful tears as well. Peter Falk was born to play this role. He plays a 90ish "young" father of three who brings his adult children together in what could possibly be one of the most important times in his and their lives. The 2 day journey that the Applebaum family takes though the delightful backdrop of New York (with carefully selected characters), not only leaves the audience wanting more, but nourishes ones own sense of family. "Checking Out" is a must see film, not only for all those who cherish family, but also all those who don't!!! My thanks to the director who took the chance to bring this GIFT to its audience. Robin Sly, Scottsdale, Arizona

Eyeliner was worn nearly 6000 years ago in Egypt. Really not that much of a stretch for it to be around in the 12th century. I also didn't realize the series flopped. There is a second season airing now isn't there? It is amazing to me when commentaries are made by those who are either ill-informed or don't watch a show at all. It is a waste of space on the boards and of other's time. The first show of the series was maybe a bit painful as the cast began to fall into place, but that is to be expected from any show. The remainder of the first season is excellent. I can hardly wait for the second season to begin in the United States.

When I saw the trailer for this film, I said out loud to no one in particular "this film is going to bomb." I also said that about THE MATRIX and look at what happened there. Now I am not a box office guru by any stretch but I usually have a pretty good gut about what is going to be good and what is going to really suck. In this case I was blinded by my complete and utter apathy towards David Duchovney. Let me put it to you a different way: I don't like his as a person ( from what I have read of him in interviews, he is unbelievably pre-madonna like and he is full of himself considering all he has done is X-Files ) or as an actor. PLAYING GOD was a really poor film but he came off thinking that for some reason he deserved big bucks on the big screen. But I am happy to say that even though those things may still be true about the man, Return To Me is delightful and has it's heart in the right place. Bonnie Hunt has directed a beautiful story and she has told it with class and grace. This is one of the most romantic films I have seen and even though it may seem to be a bit sad and maudlin in its premise, give it a chance and you will be hooked.<br /><br />It has to be said ( and this pains me to do so ) that the reason this film works so well is because of the story and the cast. Duchovney and Driver are so wonderful and believable here that I honestly wanted to cry along with them. There is one particularly powerful scene when Duchovney comes home after his wife has died and he slumps down on the floor of his house. As it always does, the family dog looks to the door to wait for his wife to come walking in. She doesn't and with his shirt collar still stained with blood, Rob ( Duchovney ) tells him that she is not coming home, ever. He then calls the dog over to him and they seem to share a cry together. The dog lets out a small moan and then Rob cries. And this is one of the most realistic moments of pain I have ever seen in any character in any movie. You can feel his pain and at that moment I forgot I was watching an actor that I generally don't like, and I felt that I was watching someone that I knew moarn the loss of his beloved. This is powerful stuff.<br /><br />Another strength of the film is the supporting cast. Bonnie Hunt has combined an ethnic melting pot of Irish and Italian characters that share a common bond. They share a pub called O'Reilley's Italian Pub. That is a delicious name all by itself. And heading the diametric scale of clashing cultures is Carol O'Connor and Robert Loggia. These are two proud old men that love their homeland but love their granddaughter and niece ( I think it is ) respectively. And that is the character played by Minnie Driver. This scenario is ripe for comedy and Hunt doesn't miss anything here.<br /><br />Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi also share some funny moments together as the middle aged married couple and Belushi gets top points as he accepts humility gracefully and shows off his ample keg of a stomach for laughs. With his family consisting of three or four kids, there is very little time for him and the wife to have quality time. And again Hunt handles this with perfect elegance. <br /><br />This is a wonderful story of finding true love, knowing how lucky you are to have true love and the power of friendship and family. Return To Me is a wonderful romance and even though I still don't have a great admiration for David Duchovney, I have to admit that he was perfect in this role and I could not picture anyone else playing his character. He was sensitive and believable and the movie was good because of him, not just because of him, but he sure added to the flavour.<br /><br />If you are a sucker for a good romance and you want a good cry, then this is the film for you. <br /><br />8.5 out of 10 I will see anything that Bonnie Hunt puts out with her in the director's chair.

A favourite of mine,this movie tells of two feuding New York "characters", Steve Brodie(Raft) and "Chuck" Connors(Beery),who both strive to be the "Main Guy" in the Bowery in the late Nineteenth Century.<br /><br />Brodie(1863-1901) and Connors(1852-1913),were real people,though this is a heavily fictionalized account of their antics(based on a play).Brodie's legendary(did he do it?- it's still a cause of argument!),jump from the Brooklyn bridge(1886),for which he became famous,is shown here as happening around the same time as the Spanish-American war(1898).Director Walsh clearly had a great affection for the period,so beautifully recreated here,and it includes a wild rumbustious ragtime number from saloon singer Trixie Odbray(a young Pert Kelton).Raft is at his slickest as Brodie,and Beery shows again what a clever actor he was,as tough, big hearted, and at times quite touching Connors.Pretty Fay Wray is the love interest both the boys are pursuing.<br /><br />Full of life and energy,"The Bowery" moves at a fast pace(unlike many early "talkies").It is not an easy movie to find,but is well worth looking out for.

Wasn't sure what to expect from this movie considering its amazing collection of stars and directors but in the end it didn't disappoint.<br /><br />For me one of the highlights was the final episode with the American tourist speaking with a dreadful French accent (which made me feel better about mine) which was actually quite touching and a great way to wrap up the movie.<br /><br />The story of the paramedic and the stabbing victim was also very moving and for pure comedy the Coen Brothers and Steve Buscemi take the award. The Tom Tykwer clip was also impressive although rather ambitious in its scope.<br /><br />However, the Bob Hoskins segment was totally cringeworthy and the vampire story was completely farcical. The dialogue in Wes Craven's section also felt very forced and the Chinatown story was completely incomprehensible.<br /><br />On the whole this film is worth watching for the good bits and has a strong finish. It's not too painful to sit through the bad sections - they only last 5 minutes anyway.<br /><br />Ca vaut la peine!!!

A ruthless assassin has been hired to eliminate someone at the very top of the U.S. government. Constantly changing his identity and location, he is known only as the Jackal. Everything about this hit man is a secret. Aware of the Jackal's presence but uncertain of his purpose, the FBI's Deputy Director faces the biggest challenge of his career. In order to track down this cold-blooded killer, he and a by-the-book Russian intelligence officer enlist the aid of an imprisoned Irish terrorist. These unlikely allies enter a global race against the clock to stop the mysterious mercenary before he can complete his assignment. If you are looking for a non-stop action movie like Die Hard, then The Jackal is not your movie. It´s a slow spy thriller with many cool gadgets and weapons. Richard Gere does a good job playing an impassioned terrorist who is helping the FBI for a deeper cause than just freedom. And Willis puts forth a good effort as the Jackal. OK film but nothing more.

Who doesn't love the muppets?! Impossible it is to watch them without getting some kind of warm, fuzzy feeling inside. So, I guess what's important is that this movie seemed to very successfully capture what makes the muppets so special. I don't remember much about the details of the plot but the various moments and characters in the film I recall quite fondly. In fact, there was quite a nostalgic atmosphere to the whole movie but without being self-conscious in any bad way. Refreshing for someone who possibly gets too hung up on meticulous details and technique; the "magic" transcends all that other stuff. 'Tis indeed what movies are made of.<br /><br />So, how does the film achieve these things? Hmmm, nice question! Stumped am I? Let's see. Really, I feel like it's quite simple. The filmmakers believe in their material and don't take themselves too seriously in the process. I probably wouldn't say the film has many truly inspired moments, but it does have a certain life to it (that funnily enough a great many "real people" movies lack). A zest. You really want to believe in these funny little people and their adventures. They also have a certain innocence about them that makes them all the more endearing.<br /><br />Generally I get the impression that the people that made the movie just weren't afraid to try whatever felt right to them at the time which gives the whole thing quite a loose feel. Kind of like a really accessible and enjoyable extended jazz session. Lots of talent, little predictability and plenty of warm personalities coming through. The cameos were of course a bunch of nice surprises for instance. Maybe I don't feel I have much to say about it because I was half-asleep when I saw it (and/or as I write this review). Anyway, I'm sort of semi-repeating myself here but I really liked the sense of family the movie had. Full of love I suppose you might say. Again, a feeling of nostalgia comes to mind which not many films manage to achieve so effectively or effortlessly.<br /><br />And to repeat myself once more, one of the film's best charms is its very relaxed and welcoming atmosphere. Like the Nathaniel Hawthorne quote about happiness being (like) a butterfly, so The Muppet Movie greatly succeeds partially by not seeming to try to do so. Same with beauty being best undiscovered or untouched or unforced or something like that. Anyway, if that sounds sappy, I also reckon it was pretty hilarious.<br /><br />So, all in all, this movie was very funny, touching and difficult not to smile along to. Plus it features lots of great music! Highly recommended to all humans, both the young and the young at heart.

Once again Bronson's talent is mostly wasted on this shock value 1984 thriller which (uncut) is far more disturbing than most of what is out even today. The fact that "The Evil That Men Do" is very disturbing (in its verbal and visual depictions of torture) is not the problem. It is the shameless gratuity in which it is presented. Interestingly, this film seems to symbolize that latter part of Bronson's career in which he has tortured many of his fans with the same egregiously predictable and uncreative plots. One hopes this fine actor will rise again.

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'm sorry, but this is such a bad movie it's hilarious. Football hooligans arguing in a travel lodge? Suits? Shades?! Alan clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he made this, it is as far from the truth as you can get.<br /><br />The casting was atrocious...Gary Oldman as a football hooligan? He doesn't look scary, act scary or even come across as someone who would like football. And as for Yeti? What the hell? Suits, shades and sitting in a travelodge childishly taunting each other with "its about time you got your nappy on". Please.<br /><br />And the Yeti's gang spraying the ICC's underwear? <br /><br />I don't see how anyone can even take this film seriously!.<br /><br />4/10. Its possibly the most inaccurate portrayal of the crisis of the late eighties hooliganism i have ever seen.

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

This is one of the silliest movies I have ever had the misfortune to watch! I should have expected it, after seeing the first two, but I keep getting suckered into these types of movies with the idea of "Maybe they did it right this time". Nope - not even close.<br /><br />Where do I begin? How about with the special effects... To give you an idea of what passes for SFX in this movie, at one point a soldier is shooting at a "Raptor" as it runs down a hallway. Even with less than a second of screen time, the viewer can easily see that it is just a man with a tail apparently taped to him running around. Bad bad bad bad.<br /><br />How about the acting? If that's what you can call it. There is one character who, I suppose, is supposed to be from the south. However, after living in the south for six years now, I have never heard this way of talking. Perhaps he has some sort of weird disability - the inability to talk normally. I find it fascinating that the character does nothing that requires him to have that accent - therefore there was no reason for the actor to try to do one.<br /><br />How about the plot? It's pretty basic - Raptors escape, people with guns must hunt them down. I'm starting to wonder why the dinosaurs in these movies always seem to run into the nearest system of tunnels... wouldn't they stay outside to hunt prey? Oh well, at least they have the good sense to appear very very little in the movie which supposedly revolves around them.<br /><br />Other things - Let's say you are in a building and you know that there are man eating raptors running around in it. Would you decide to take time out to have an argument about who is better - Army or Marine? And then decide to have an arm wrestling contest to settle it? How about the idiotic idea that they have to track down the raptors - Split up into groups of two. Didn't they ever watch any horror movies (Or at least an episode of Scooby Doo)? In short, this is one of the dumber movies out there. Miss it unless you want to groan your way through a movie.

A remake of the 1916 silent film, based on the 1909 novel by Maurice Leblanc. The detective series would be made into numerous plays, films and TV series in the UK, the US, and France over the years. This 1932 version starred the smashing Barrymore brothers John (as the Duke) and Lionel (as Detective Guerchard). They would also star together in Grand Hotel, Dinner at Eight, and several others over the next couple years. Sonia (Karen Morley) shows up in the Duke's bed during a party in this pre-Hayes code film; first the lights go out in the bedroom, then they go out in the main ballroom, then the search is on for the crook and the missing jewelry, as well as other missing valuables... You can tell talkies hadn't been around too long, as they still use caption cards several times. Also watch for a new kind of safe that doesn't need a combination. Well-thought- out plot, no big holes, but no big surprises here either. Not bad for an early talkie film. Clever ending.

Although this series and the mini film in particular were very important at the time of release, I feel that the series as a whole was actually fairly poorly written with a weak cast. The issues at heart are extremely well portrayed yet it is difficult to relate and understand the problems within the film when the acting and script isn't convincing enough (especially when looking at the mini film).<br /><br />I also don't believe that this mini film or series has stood the test of time as now many of the scenes are quite laughable. The issues are still crucial but Boys From The Blackstuff cannot fully aid the cause of understanding the problems in Britain in the 1980s.

I've got as much testosterone as the next bloke, and Raquel Welch at her finest is certainly worth a look; but the fact is that a cardboard cut-out could act better, and an hour and half of Ms. W showing off her considerable assets does not a movie make.<br /><br />Considering the cast, it's surprising that it's as bad as it is. I've never been a big fan of Wagner, and his tough guy Harry is about as convincing as a 9-dollar bill. Godfrey Cambridge and Vittorio de Sica, both of whom I usually enjoy, seem to be sleeping through their lines; and as for Edward G...well, I can only assume he was there for the paycheck.<br /><br />This film is a mess: from non-existent plot, through stop-start action and unfunny script to puerile slapstick and annoying 60's 'caper' music. If it weren't for Miss Welch, I'd have given it a 0.<br /><br />That said, she is a treat to the eyes - even better than her delicious cameo in 'Bedazzled' - and for that reason alone I gave it a 3.

From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?

As a long-time fan of all the Star Trek series,I found this a disappointing episode, and I wonder if the liberal use of "flashbacks" featuring Will Riker's exploits, both positive (and largely romantic) and negative (lots of pain, and a crewmate's death)was a money-saving device, as were many of their "bottle shows" (episodes in which all scenes take place on the Enterprise). Diana Muldaur(who also appeared at least twice on the original series) deserved a better final appearance than this for her character, Dr. Kate Pulaski. Loyal viewers (in the Star Trek world, is there any other kind?) also were shortchanged. This was the last episode of second season; thus, the season ended "not with a bang" but with "a whimper."

Hammerhead is a combination between the mad scientist and killer shark movie genres. In a bit of type-casting, Jeffrey Combs plays the aforementioned mad scientist who develops a human/hammerhead shark creature. Bizarrely, this being is in fact his son, who he has turned into this monster to prevent him dying from cancer. Or something.<br /><br />A group of associates are invited to the scientist's private island. They end up being used as shark bait or shark mate. For some unknown reason the head of IT has been brought along as part of this team. Who knows why? Luckily, he turns out to be a resourceful, if somewhat overweight, Ramboesque hero. I'm working on the assumption that he learnt how to handle an assault rifle as part of his day job working in 1st line support. A normal day for this IT man presumably involves fixing someone's network connection followed by a call to gun down gun-toting evil-doers. Or perhaps a call to fix someone's PC has to be scheduled between physical confrontations with land-based human-shark hybrids? Anyway, he's amazing and saves the day. He even get's the girl.<br /><br />The shark-man is a slightly lame creation but OK, I guess, judging by the effects in general in this film. And the movie moves on at a decent pace. It's complete hokum of course but if you buy a movie called Hammerhead and expect it to be a complex drama about the emotional conflicts experienced by a man turned into a land-based killer fish, then really you have no one to blame but yourself. As it is, there are guns, gore, girls and possibly even an exploding helicopter. It's rubbish but not as bad as some might say.

In fact, parts of it I liked a lot. It had some interesting twists. But it just left me with a been there, seen that feeling after all of the SAW movies. Granted the ending was different from a typical Saw, but let's face it...a group of guys, unknown to each other (or so they believe) tossed together in an abandoned chemical factory....<br /><br />But then it loses something. There's no intensity, there's poor group dynamic, there's no sense of urgency.<br /><br />Some nice twists at the end, and definitely worth a watch if there's nothing else on your plate, but it just left me empty...it passed the time, but it didn't satisfy.

"The Garden of Allah" was one of the first feature length, 3-strip Technicolor films. To correct a previous poster the first Technicolor feature (after Disney's 5-year exclusivity deal) was 1935's "Becky Sharp" which was a costume drama that used the color for it's garish color costumes.<br /><br />"The Garden of Allah" looks as if it could have been shot years later as the cinematography uses not only the color but also the use of shadows. It must have been amazing for an audiences at the time to see a color feature after seeing basically only black and white films for their whole life. Unfortunately, the film does not stand up to the cinematography. That being said, the film is worth seeing just as a visual treat.

It's awesome! In Story Mode, your going from punk to pro. You have to complete goals that involve skating, driving, and walking. You create your own skater and give it a name, and you can make it look stupid or realistic. You are with your friend Eric throughout the game until he betrays you and gets you kicked off of the skateboard team(you can pick a team to be on) and you then start your own team! There are many levels like New Jersey, Manhattan, and even School II(not part of story mode though) from Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2. You can unlock secret skaters like Iron Man, Gene Simmons, and another skater. You can create your own goals like SKATE letters, COMBO letters, Tricktris, Gap, and much more. You can create the goal pedestrian and write what they speak. If you get bored of doing that, you can do the premade goals in premade parks. The only thing I didn't like about this game was that sometimes it was hard to drive the cars. 9/10.

There's a part of me that would like to give this movie a high rating. Considering that it was made in 1953, this is a very courageous movie about transvestites, tackling the issue fairly seriously and sympathetically (and offering the viewer a lot of information on the subject) and trying very hard not to stereotype. The movie clearly makes the point that transvestites are not homosexuals, and that aside from wearing women's clothing they lead a relatively normal life. It deals with the pain of not being accepted in society - the plot revolves around a police officer (Lyle Talbot) desperately trying to understand the issue because of the recent suicide of a transvestite. So, you have to give everyone involved with this movie credit for taking on such a controversial (in the context of 1953) subject.<br /><br />Having said all that, I'm also sorry to say that this movie is absolutely dreadful. In trying to portray Glen/Glenda's (Edward D. Wood) pain, the movie falls into silly (and at times surprisingly - again given the era - sensual) fantasies that make the story very hard to follow. The acting is wooden at best. None of the dialogue comes across as real; the actors look and sound like people reading speeches written by others. And - worst of all - there was no point to having Bela Lugosi in this movie. This was another of the increasingly embarrassing roles this poor man took on in the latter stages of his career. "Pull the strings; pull the strings," poor Lugosi's character (called The Spirit in the credits, but really coming across as more of a mad scientist) kept crying. And nothing he did really seemed to have much connection with the rest of the movie.<br /><br />For artistic merit, the movie doesn't really deserve much more than 1/10. However, for the courage involved in just putting it out, I'll give it a 3/10.

This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon.

I should have known when I heard Anne Rice left the project that the movie would disappoint me. I couldn't have predicted that years after it's release just thinking about the movie still makes me angry. The novels are amazing, and while I understand much gets lost in the translation to screen, this movie was a great big middle finger to her original work. I hope one day someone tries again, the right way, starting with The Vampire Lestat. They change the roles and looks of major and minor characters alike for no good reason. They destroy Lestat's history. The acting of the Queen is exaggerated to the point of comedy, but I just can't bring myself to laugh. The charm and allure of the novels just isn't there. The movie is a bad excuse to cram as many musicians and "dark" imagery as possible into one movie, hoping the teeny Goths of America would lap it up. Part of the appeal of the first movie, of Louis' story, is that he is caught between his humanity and his curse. Lestat is supposed to take over and display the magic and excitement of the vampire world. Thank goodness I read the books first, or I'd have never touched them after this movie.

OK, imagine that every state in the US, nay, every country has exactly the same trees growing and ground foliage. Imagine, also, that a monkey-trapper's camp so far off the beaten track you had to do the first half of the approach by river has a beautifully tarmac'd, perfectly straight road leading up to it. Imagine a world where you have to wear a full biohazard suit to collect a floppy disk, then you just drop it in a ziploc bag and transfer it to your pocket with no precautions as soon as you get back to the office. A world where two nine-year old girls are happy to give lots of blood without complaining. This is the world this movie is set in.<br /><br />On top of that, it's one of the most cliché-ridden pieces of excrement it's been my misfortune to witness in many a year.<br /><br />I liked it. :)

First of all I would like to point out that this film has absolutely nothing to see with the Dutch folklore story of the ghost ship that is also called THE FLYING DUTCHMAN. In this film, you will not see a single sailing boat. You will not see sailors, ghosts, or anything remotely exciting. It is not the story of the ghost ship, and I wish they had notified it in the main credits or I wouldn't have watched it, because I really thought it was the film about the legend. It seems many people think the film has to do with the legend of the ghost ship, since the film is listed on the Wikipedia page for the "Flying Dutchman" legend... I don't understand why. It is maybe based on the resembling legend called "The Wandering Jew"? Or maybe did they just adapt the worst parts of the legend? The film begins with a fight sequence that would let anyone hope the film will have battle scenes. Unfortunately, it is the only battle scene of the film. Then you see Daniel Emilfork (who was Krank in City of Lost Children) for about two seconds, and that would let anyone hope the film will have good acting. Unfortunately he is very bad in the film. The same thing can be said about Italian actor Nino Manfredi, who was one of Italia's best actors ever, and who here is condemned to embody a crazy bird wrangler with no back story whose only purpose is to seem to be the "wise man" of the film. And boy, does that film need wiseness! Every other character of the story seems to enjoy swimming in excrement, yelling, torturing others (in excrement), fornicating (in excrement) or laying in excrement some more just for the fun of it. It seems to be such fun that each character of the story gets to have his or her turn being dumped in feces at a point or another. Coming from a Dutch director, you might think that extreme dirtiness and shockingly real filth are necessary elements in a period piece, elements which contributed to make Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven's film, "Flesh + Blood", such a great film. The thought of "Flesh + Blood" would let anyone hope that a film similarly filthy and visually straight-forward would be good. Unfortunately, and unlike "Flesh + Blood", there is no dramatic progression, no fights, no good acting, and put simply, no "Flesh and Blood". The photography, as the opening sequence unfolds, is well-done and enticing. This too, stops very early in the film. The music, from Nicola Piovani (of "La vità e bella" fame) is repetitive and annoying, when not irrelevant (it sometimes implies that there is grandeur in a sequence, while on screen the actors are splashing in liquid dung). Throughout the first "act" of the film, which lasts nothing less than an hour (!), the film takes place within the same perimeter, which is around the farm where the main characters live. The characters play with excrement a lot, drown in it, play in it. A long period of time elapses through numerous ellipses to allows the main character, a young boy who loves to play in excrement, to become older and play in excrement some more. The bird-man talks a lot to say foolish things in Italian. Spanish conquistadors speak French. Nothing makes sense. Everything is confused and takes hours to happen. Then there is a second act called "the Ship", in which we see what might have been a ship, a long time ago, but which is now remains of a ship (covered with excrement did I mention?). The main character, while walking a bit further away from the farm, just happens to run into it, and decides it's really cool so let's live in it. The hunchback who lived in it before is trying to kill him, but he doesn't really mind because (did I mention?) he's not very bright. He thinks the ship can navigate and hopes to sail on it, until more conquistadors show up (at least they seemed to be conquistadors because of the Don Quixote style hats but as I've said it's really confused who's who), make the Dutchman a prisoner, along with the retarded hunchback, and they burn the ship to the ground. The last part of the film, which is really hard to bear for the spectator because it just consists of even more excrement with even more retarded middle-age peasants fighting in it, takes place in a mad asylum. Yet more torture and drowning each other with feces. Yet more loitering for the director, who seems to have definitely given up on his job, or passed onto the second crew camera assistant to do the rest of the job. In the end, a lot of the mentally-challenged new "friends" that the Dutchman made die. The woman he had sex with who was his brother's wife to begin with tries to have him meet his son. The Dutchman and his son talk. The film ends after two hours of dungy images and calamitous acting and technical performances. Then the credits roll and the spectator fells immensely free from having to watch atrocious films with no plot that pretend to be something exciting like fantasy films based on legends, while they are nothing but a mere catalog of how full of excrement some films can get when they don't have enough financing powers to put battles instead or even horses.

Firstly I loved the book, more so than the more popular Da Vinci Code and although the DVC film was not well received, I liked it and bought the DVD. However, there is no chance that I will ever want to watch Angles and Demons ever again.<br /><br />The film barely resembles the book, in fact only the general premise of the story is there.<br /><br />From the very start of the film I was disappointed, in the book Robert Langdon receives a call and fax from Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN. Who finds the body of Father (can't remember the name) and then requests Langdon to come, using the super fast plane... In the book the only people who knew about this technology that the Father and Daughter team had created were themselves and the camerlingo... In the film however, there was a massive team involved... so the tension was never there... how did they find out etc.<br /><br />Leaving out or rather changing this whole part of the story was a massive mistake and was in my mind what made it a poor movie... it changed everything that happened from then on, when the Camerlingo was confronted in the pope's locked room, it should have been Maximilian Kohler who shot the video from his wheel chair, the commander rushed in to get the camerlingo but was shot by Olivetti, in the film it was the commander in the room and Olivetti was shot... (err I think I got this right, but I was bored and can't really remember the events in the film)...<br /><br />There was no love interest between Vittoria and Robert and in the book she wasn't at CERN when he arrived and was indeed was flown in from her research work. In the book all four of the preferratti were killed, but in the film the last one of the four survived the fountain. In the book Vittoria was kidnapped and Robert had to rescue her and it was they that killed the Assassin at the Church of the Illuminati, not blown up like he was in the film by the Camerlingo. The bit where Robert was confined under a stone coffin was not there, saved by his Mickey mouse watch alarm. OK in the book we are led to believe that Langdon bailed out of the helicopter, fair enough to say that this was a bit far stretched, but it was important in the film, because he had to race back with the film... There was no mention of how Vittoria and her adopted father became involved, this was also important in getting to know the character of Vittoria.<br /><br />In all one of the worse films I have seen, I would have left early, but my brain went numb and I lost the use of my legs temporarily. A really really reeeeeeaaaaaaalllly poor attempt and not one of Ron Howards finest, in fact, how he will get work again is beyond me!!! I want my money back!!!

Spinal Tap was funny because if you knew a little about heavy metal, you saw in-jokes all over the place. If you know anything about porn, this mock documentary will leave you cold. Everything in it rings false.<br /><br />Spinal Tap was funny because it took a familiar world and pushed it over the top. This film is decidedly not funny because it paints a picture of how porn is made that bears no relationship to the real world.<br /><br />The acting here is uniformly awful, but that would not matter much if the core idea of the movie were good. But it's not.

This entry is certainly interesting for series fans (like myself), but yet it is mostly incomprehensible. The plot is confusing, as is the sequel continuity. Some striking effects, to be sure, but we never find out what it all really means.<br /><br />Try to see the "NC-17" workprint version which contains the gore that was cut to be re-rated "R".

Of all the kung-fu films made through the 70's and 80's this is one that has developed a real cult following. With the exception of all the films Bruce Lee starred in this is a film that has stood the test of time and its due to the unique story. An aging kung-fu master tells his last pupil Yang Tieh (Sheng Chiang) about five pupils he has trained in the past. All five wore masks and nobody has seen the face of each other and they have all been trained differently. Their specialty in kung-fu is the name they have adopted like Lizard, Snake, Centipede, Toad and Scorpion. The master called them the Poison Clan and he does not know what has happened to them so he wants Tieh to find them and help the ones that are doing good to stop the others that are evil. An old man who was once a member of the Poison Clan has a map to where he has hidden a lot of money and he seems to be a target. Tieh does not know what they look like so he has to mingle in society and try and figure out who they are. Tieh has discovered that the Snake is Hung Wen Tung (Pai Wei) and along with Tang Sen Kue (Feng Lu) who is the Centipede they kill a family to find the map. A map is found by a mystery man who turns out to be the Scorpion but know one knows who he is. A local policeman named Ho Yung Sin (Philip Kwok) investigates the murders along with his partner Ma Chow (Chien Sun). Sin has a friend called Li Ho (Meng Lo) who is the Toad and they do know of each others identity. The Snake bribes the local officials to pin the murders on Li Ho and while he is in prison he is tortured and killed. When Sin finds out he teams up with Tieh and together they go to combat Tung and Kue. <br /><br />This film was directed by Cheh Chang and he was a very special director when it came to these films. Chang was not your run of the mill kung-fu director and his films always had a special quality to them. While most martial arts films deal with revenge Chang did not use that as a central theme. Even though there is some revenge going on later in this story this film is more complex than that. Five men trained by the same master in different ways and wearing masks. Then they are all in the same area and not knowing who the other is. Very unique story makes this film different from all the others and most of Changs stories were in a class all by themselves. I wouldn't exactly put it in the same league as "Enter The Dragon" because Bruce Lee was a worldwide icon and the martial arts he exhibited were more authentic looking. This film still has some impossible feats like clinging to sides of walls and all the flipping through the air but this film isn't necessarily about fight scenes. Its more about the intrigue of the story and the characters that are involved. That alone makes this different from all the other kung-fu films. Very well made with a unique story.

I don't doubt that Victor McLaglen won his Best Actor Oscar for this film by dint of a three way split among the Mutiny on the Bounty leads of Clark Gable, Charles Laughton, and Franchot Tone who were all in the same race. But The Informer is still a fine film because John Ford wouldn't have gotten his first Best Director Oscar if it wasn't. No split involved in his award.<br /><br />The movie and the story by Liam O'Flaherty that it is based on involves a poor simpleton of a man named Gypo Nolan who was once a member of the Irish Republican Army. He was cashiered out of it for some imbecilic stunt he pulled and wants back in. He's down to his last pence and if he can't get back in, wants enough for passage to America. There's a twenty pound reward for information leading to the arrest of a former comrade named Frankie McPhillip played by Wallace Ford. In a moment of weakness he goes to the Black and Tan constabulary and informs on McPhillip.<br /><br />The IRA is pretty anxious to find out who ratted McPhillip out and they're pretty certain it was McLaglen. He hasn't the wit to really cover his own tracks. He does make a feeble effort to implicate another man named Peter Mulligan played by Donald Meek. He also picks up a hanger-on played by J.M. Kerrigan.<br /><br />The whole action of The Informer takes place in 1922 in Dublin from about six in the evening to early the following morning. Of a necessity it is shot in darkness and shadows, making it possibly the first noir thriller. Had it been done post World War II The Informer would have ranked as a great noir classic, like Odd Man Out or the The Third Man which it bares a lot of resemblance to.<br /><br />John Ford knew this world very well. He took some time off during the Rebellion and was in Ireland at the time and had a brother who was in the IRA. His real name before having it anglicized was Sean O'Fiernan.<br /><br />Preston Foster plays the IRA commandant Dan Gallagher. In the book Gallagher is a harder and meaner man than Foster has him here. My guess is that John Ford wanted him as a sympathetic character to give movie fans some rooting interest. He makes it clear that Foster has to eliminate the informer because the Black and Tans will grab him and get quite a bit more out of him and put the whole organization in peril.<br /><br />The IRA trial scene is the highlight of the film. When Foster asks Donald Meek whether he recognizes the authority of their court, Meek ain't in a position to say no. The King's justice and writ does not run here. It graphically illustrates at that point despite occupation by army troops and constabulary, the British are indeed losing their grip on the population.<br /><br />Of course The Informer a rather grim story has its John Ford touches, but rather fewer than you would expect. Even as McLaglen is spending his money on a drunken spree, the IRA is constantly in the shadows watching him and counting every farthing.<br /><br />The Informer is a tale well told about Ireland in a grim and dismal time.

May Contain Spoilers.<br /><br />An innocent trailer park or maybe 'Compton' LA white kid witnesses a terrible childhood tragedy relating to drugs and violence. An unprofessional but dedicated police partners try to take down a 'sophisticated' high end club drug ring only to be fired and chewed out by the the drug lords high priced attorneys. The plot thickens as more people come back to seek vengeance and justice with a predictable ending. The only memorable part was a walk-on by Ron Jeremy.<br /><br />If I was in a movie theater I would have asked for a refund. I feel sorry for the poor actors in this movie. It was just awful and painful to watch. The worst part was the cinematography were the director kept flashing back within the same scene so the sound would not quite match. And NO it was not a codec nor DVD problem but an intentional technique. Ughh. Two Stars.

I actually didn't start watching the show until it came on FX. I was bored and had nothing to watch and saw that the show's reruns were premiering so i decided to watch it. I was so upset that I had not watched the show when it first aired on t.v. I loved the show so much!Finally a show for everyone to enjoy. I remember Full House and Family Matters and Step by Step and they were okay shows but just not funny enough. They would make dumb jokes and laugh over things that were just plain stupid, but not That 70s Show. That 70s Show was hilarious, smart and so real. I think it was the best show ever made and I'm very sorry that it ended. Although I love this show, I do think it should have ended on the seventh season when Eric and Kelso leave. The last season was just not right, Eric was the main character and the show should have ended when his character leaves. I still love this show and I hope TV starts making more shows like this one.

This film coincides with Mike Allred's comic book mini-series, "Red Rocket Seven" and tells the story of an alien who escaped to Earth to wait for "Astroesque" which ties into the book of Revelations and the apocylpse. This is only part of a bigger story (if the movie confuses you, read "RR7" too). You can easily tell that Allred is used to telling stories with pictures. The direction is very good and the effects aren't bad for a $500 budget. Unfortunately, Mike used many friends to play the roles and probably didn't have the heart to say that they couldn't act. Also, Mike is not showing his writing skills in this movie. His dialouge spoon-feeds the plot to you and doesn't let you enjoy the characters. This was actually disappointing considering his tremendous writing ability shown in his comic books. 4 out of 10.

Again, we're getting a melange of themes well covered by so many previous films. The good and the bad son story, courtesy East of Eden. The American marine hero story, who doesn't consider himself to be one due to what he knows. And the grieving wife potentially falling in love with another man story.<br /><br />The mere fact of those stories being that ubiquitous isn't so much of a problem though. Because theoretically they could still be better presented and dealt with each time around. No luck this time though, as all three of those threads ultimately fall flat all the same.<br /><br />As the bad son never really gets to talk to his father, so that conflict is never resolved properly. Apart from the father kind of starting to appreciate the bad son thanks to the latter renovating the kitchen of the grieving wife. Now, how satisfying is that.<br /><br />Next, the surprisingly homecoming marine suspecting his wife of unfaithfulness conflict never gets resolved. Because he never really talks to the man under suspicion, namely his own brother. So once more we're handed a loose end here.<br /><br />And finally, the American military heroism hypocrisy theme, where the marine is publicly considered a hero when, due to the dirtiness of war he went through, he shouldn't really be called one as to his own standards, that third theme falls flat just the same. Because the movie ends right when, for the first time, he's just able to talk to his wife about what he went through. Where the real story would actually begin at that very point, namely his process of recovery, how that would look like and how he would finally face the family he'd have some major guilt to admit to. All that, all the really interesting bits are passed over and getting ignored.<br /><br />So while story wise this film is a serious, and I mean serious, disappointment, I'd still give it points for the impressive cast. Although no film should use Maguire for a voice over, because that belongs to Spiderman. Especially a grown up Gyllenhaal seems to fulfill all the expectations he aroused as a young and aspiring actor. So much that I'd in fact love to see him entrusted with a really deep and demanding lead role of proper profile.<br /><br />So while the cast really seems to do what they can, I consider this film totally forgettable otherwise. A shallow and ultimately pretentious, utterly unsatisfying tear squeezer indeed. Message du jour to the writers: we know the wounds already, see the host of Vietnam films. You want to earn some credit, show us a believable healing.

It is quite rare that a movie comes along that is so useless, that I with IMDb allowed the use of negative scores. In fact, I reflect back upon this movie and I truly cannot think of a movie that had so little going for it. Acting: Your Kidding right. Direction: No. A plot: No. This movie has nothing going for it if you take it as a serious movie, this is often the case with movies of this genre, but most movies of this nature can be watch as if they are a comedy and you can laugh at how pathetic the characters and situations are and almost get your times worth. This movie is so empty, that it cannot even suit that purpose. I have to give this a -1/10, three points lower then any other movie I have ever rated. I truly feel that the staff involved in this movie should pay me for the 83 minutes I spent watching it. I do not really have the words to describe how bad this is. No one should ever watch this for any reason again.

All the bare chested women in the world couldn't keep me from hitting the stop button about a third of the way through this awful rubbish. With the derisory acting, equally terrible script plus the poor CGI FX to match; this movie is an insult to the Werewolf genre. It is supposed to be serious, which in itself would be funny if this film could even make it to the level of being a bad joke.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where the people behind the camera are obviously competent but are too lazy to make something even one quarter decent. Avoid at all costs and watch one of the classic Werewolf movies instead.<br /><br />0 out of 10!

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Well, seeing as I am a major H:LOTS fan, maybe I liked the movie more than normal people would. However, this movie is still excellent. It had tons of surprises, and it gave some more closure to the series. While I was sad that Bayliss turned into a murderer, the overall feeling I felt was satisfied.

Here is proof of why Mary Pickford was `America's Sweetheart.' In this rather complex drama, Mary plays the young daughter of a squatter that dare to dream of a relationship with the son of one of the `hill-toppers.' The scenes where they steal a kiss and otherwise fall in love are simply delightful. She is even willing to take a bath. That Mary could pull this role off at the age of 30 is simply amazing and somewhat due to her diminutive stature (5').<br /><br />Tess must face numerous physical and emotional challenges. She does so with spunk not seen in many heroines of the time. Tess packs a wallop and is not shy about fighting with anyone. Why she agrees to help the `hill-topper' daughter is beyond me, but she sacrifices her own happiness in order to keep a deep secret. Pickford's close ups are wonderful.<br /><br />Danish-born Jean Hersholt is simply wonderful as the villain. The scene in which he manhandles a small baby is enough to make you throw vegetables (or whatever) at the movie screen. If Forrest Robinson (who plays Daddy Skinner) had worn a beard, he would have been a match for the model used in those World War I recruiting posters of Uncle Sam – Wants You!<br /><br />Although the story is somewhat predictable and slow in the beginning, it is worth the investment in your time to see the piece or pure `Americana.' The film highlights choices available to us all involving making someone else happy and what it is to be a real Christian. Recommended.

I think it's the sort of film you either love or hate and I'm really not the type to go in for arty movies. My mother rented "mullhuland DR" the other night and I nearly ran from the room, ha. But I love this film.<br /><br />We recorded "The Beat" one night when we had just let the tape run and got a great film that way by accident. Saved that tape and watched it a lot. I eventually got the VHS to add to my collection. I've watched it many times and at one point copied down the poems. I even tried to preform one scene for my high school drama class. She had said we could do any scene we wanted and just cut out the bad words. She refused to let me do it. If it could upset my drama teacher that much it has to be good :) Honest she never treated me the same after that.<br /><br />I liked the acting it came off very true and honest. It wasn't clean and polished but it was better than that. It was true to life, how anyone would truly behave and display emotions not how Hollywood does. It was great acting especially by the one playing Rex.<br /><br />The story was original. Not only do the characters get drawn into his world but you do too. Not your typical person meets inner city kids and saves them through knowledge film at all. Simply caring and friendship make things a bit better.<br /><br />The only thing is that even in the 80's there was more gun violence and less simple stuff like rock throwing but that little bit of innocence didn't hurt this film.<br /><br />I think it's a must see. you will either love or hate it but either way it makes an impact and that makes a good film that you will remember and talk about later.

It's not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...<br /><br />Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).<br /><br />Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 / TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.<br /><br />Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a "cool guy" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move!

CRY FREEDOM is an excellent primer for those wanting an overview of apartheid's cruelty in just a couple of hours. Famed director Richard Attenborough (GANDHI) is certainly no stranger to the genre, and the collaboration of the real-life Mr. and Mrs. Woods, the main white characters in their book and in this film, lends further authenticity to CRY FREEDOM. The video now in release actually runs a little over 2 and a half hours since 23 minutes of extra footage was inserted to make it a two part TV miniseries after the film's initial theatrical release. While the added length serves to heighten the film's forgivable flaws: uneven character development and blanket stereotyping in particular, another possible flaw (the insistence on the white characters' fate over that of the African ones) may work out as a strength. Viewing CRYING FREEDOM as a politically and historically educational film (as I think it should, over its artistic merits), the story is one which black Africans know only too well, though the younger generation may now need to see it on film for full impact. It is the whites who have always been the film's and the book's target audience, hopefully driving them to change. Now twelve years after the movie's production, CRY FREEDOM is in many ways a more interesting film to watch. Almost ten years after black majority rule has been at least theorically in place, 1987's CRY FREEDOM's ideals remain by and large unrealized. It therefore remains as imperative as ever for white South Africans, particularly the younger ones who have only heard of these actions to see it, and absorb the film's messages. In total contrast to American slavery and the Jewish Holocaust's exposure, South Africans' struggles have been told by a mere two or three stories: CRY FREEDOM, CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY (OK, Count it twice if you include the remake), and SARAFINA (did I miss one?). All three dramas also clumsily feature American and British actors in both the white and black roles. Not one South African actor has played a major role, white, coloured, Indian or Black!). And yes I did miss another international South African drama, MANDELA and DEKLERK. Though this (also highly recommended) biopic was released after black majority rule was instituted, MANDELA was played by a Black American (Sidney Poitier, who also starred in the original S.A.-themed CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY), while the Afrikaner DeKlerk was played by a (bald) very British Michael Caine, a good performance if you can dismiss that the very essence of Afrikanerdom is vehement anti-British feelings. Until local SABC TV and African films start dealing with their own legacy, CRY FREEDOM is about as authentic as you'll get. As villified as the whites (particularly the Afrikaners) are portrayed in the film, any observant (non-casual) visitor to South Africa even now in 1999, not to mention 1977 when CRY FREEDOM takes place, will generally find white's attitudes towards blacks restrained, even understated. Looking at CRY FREEDOM in hindsight, it is amazing that reconciliation can take place at all, and it is. But CRY FREEDOM at time shows not much has really changed in many people's minds yet, and that the Black Africans' goal to FREEDOM and reconciliation is still ongoing. This is why if you're a novice to the situation, CRY FREEDOM, is your best introduction.

I did not have too much interest in watching The Flock.Andrew Lau co-directed the masterpiece trilogy of Infernal Affairs but he had been fired from The Flock and he had been replaced by an emergency director called Niels Mueller.I had the feeling that Lau had made a good film but it had not satisfied the study,so they fired him and hired another director.This usually does not work well (let's remember The Invasion).But The Flock resulted to be better than what I expected.It's not a great film but it's an interesting and entertaining thriller.The character development is very well done and I could know the characters very well.Also,the relationship between the two main characters is natural and credible.Richard Gere and Claire Danes bring competent performances.Now,let's go to the negative points.One element which really bothered me (there was a moment in which it irritated me) was the excess of edition tricks to give the movie more "attitude" and style.That tricks feel out of place and their presence is arbitrary.Plus,I think the film should have been more ambitious.In spite of that,I recommend The Flock as a good thriller.It's not memorable at all,but it's entertaining.

I have this movie on a collection of inexpensive B-movies. It's not restored, in fact, the audio was difficult to discern for the first few minutes.<br /><br />At first, it seemed like a typical haunted house film, and feels very much like the forerunner of Clue, Murder by Death, House on Haunted Hill, etc.<br /><br />About a half hour into the film, the storyline takes a really interesting twist--and it goes from being a cliché melodrama to something entirely different, and far more entertaining than I had initially thought.<br /><br />Check it out, it's a great deal of fun, even if the long clips and wider shots (and near lack of music score) make it feel a bit creaky by today's standards.

'Heaven's Gate' is not a masterpiece, which apparently was what it needed to be upon first release to justify its great cost, and, more importantly, the continued uneasy reliance of Hollywood on the Auteur model of film-making. Yet 'Heaven's Gate', seen today at last on DVD in a cut of 229 minutes, is a superb film. It is a touch lethargic in pace. But at least it is paced. Quite apart from the incompetence of construction that marks many films today, there have been many films which, deliberate in form, have been severely damaged by being hacked down with no care for rhythm so the films become shapeless and confusing. Beyond this, the criticisms leveled at the film have become in retrospect quite lame. If the good guys and bad guys are too obviously pronounced for a serious film, and yes Sam Waterston's mustachioed, fur-clad villain is comic-opera (and not in the multi-leveled manner of Bill The Butcher from 'Gangs of New York'), and yes, the townsfolk do seem a touch 'Fiddler On The Roof' on occasions, then a few dozen serious films made since then, including 'Titanic' and the graceless 'Cold Mountain' (which bears certain similarities and is a notable failure in convincing qualities compared to this film) can be castigated for exactly the same reason. <br /><br />Also despite accusations, the film has a plot, quite a well-essayed plot at that. It simply does not bow to standard-form 'epic' quality, by providing Titan heroes, rafts of sub-plots and confusion. It experiments with telling in a manner more like much smaller, modest films, by carefully-caught moments of character interaction, and well-textured pageant-like explosions of communal action, as with the opening at Harvard and, most specially, the wonderful scene where the Johnson County folk, following the lead of a brilliantly physical fiddler, make celebration on roller-skates.<br /><br />'The Deer Hunter' was a critical and commercial success but abandoned the first half's inspired, mosaic-like accumulation of detail, and I think in a manner similar to criticism of Robert Penn Warren's novel 'All The King's Men' and its dictionary of Jacobean stunts, if Cimino had not had such a strong grasp of the conventions of Hollywood epics, he might have made a special rare work of art based in honest visualisation of people within their milieu. In contrast, 'Heaven's Gate' succeeds in screwing its narrative momentum and tension upwards in a slowly expanding arc, until the finale explodes, whilst not abandoning the mosaic approach.<br /><br />The central romantic triangle, for instance, resists standard inflections; a decent, intelligent, but psychically defeated man, James Averill (Kris Kristofferson) competes with a hot-shot but identity-challenged young gunman Nate Champion (Christopher Walken) for the hand of a young Madame, Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert); there is no self-conscious bed-hopping, no slaps in the face, recriminations, or typical sad-sack moments, but more a sad and distanced decision by Ella to choose the younger man whom she loves less because he is ready to make the commitment. Ella emerges as the film's true hero (Huppert's performance, though initially awkward, is really quite excellent, balancing a dewy emotionalism with a hard-hammered spirit), attempting first to rescue Nate and then mustering the resistance party of immigrants into an enterprising defence. Subsequently, Averill is stung into action as friends die. Indeed, in the process of overcoming so many traps of cliché and style, 'Heaven's Gate' successfully and willfully throws off the defeated outsider-heroes grace note of so many '70s Westerns and portrays an eventual, vigorous, cheer-the-heroes rallying to a compromised but still relished victory. <br /><br />The social conflict of so many '70s Westerns at last hardens into a fully-fledged war; where capital attempts a crushing final victory over the miscreants who stand in their way, suddenly they find a massed and more-powerful people's army, led by the man who played the thoroughly-destroyed Billy the Kid a decade before. This is what led the film to be described as the first Marxist Western, but really it simply deflowers a theme of the genre extant well before the '60s. Such various and classic old-school works as William Wyler's 'The Westerner', and even 'Shane', tell awfully similar stories. It is simply here that the romantic myth of the gunslinger has been replaced by the romantic myth of the people's revolt. In a spectacular, exiting, but realistic and thus chaotic finale, the marauding Cattlemen's encampment is attacked, ringed by dust clouds punctuated by fallen horses, writhing bodies, and gunfire. Averill puts his classical education to work finally by stealing a Roman trick and bringing the Cattlemen to the brink of annihilation before they are rescued by the Cavalry (another distinctly seditious touch, but surely not so offensive after 'Little Big Man's unrelenting depiction of Native American massacres). Really, it's hard to think of a more heroically American vision of grassroots resistance. The film's only real dead spot stands as an unnecessary coda indicating Averill's eventual relapse, a rather potted piece of tragedy. <br /><br />Despite then certain failings and a slow mid-section, 'Heaven's Gate' is a supreme piece of work, a genuine attempt to create a contemporary Western and a new kind of epic. If one has to still join the chorus that reckons Cimino was absurd in his behaviour on set and expenditure, it is regretfully. When, today, flops like 'The Adventures of Pluto Nash' and 'K-19 - The Widowmaker' see nearly a hundred million dollars sink down the drain, and yet a tag of infamy still hangs on this film, one ponders what exactly its grim death signified. The attempt at original style, the bawdy sexuality, the very hard-won sense of detail, the breathtaking rigor of the film-making and what is being filmed, all throw into contrast what is sorely lacking in so much contemporary Hollywood product.

Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane<br /><br />Seymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.<br /><br />According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seemingly<br /><br />foppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and clever<br /><br />when he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored as<br /><br />Percy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to be<br /><br />the most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due to<br /><br />bad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, and<br /><br />Elizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit and<br /><br />dash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replaced<br /><br />by brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut. <br /><br /> I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous version<br /><br />or read the book, it would probably look ok.

"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.<br /><br />Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.<br /><br />The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots. <br /><br />The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.<br /><br />Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.<br /><br />Grade: C-

A very sensitive topic--15 y/o girl abandoned by mother as a baby and who goes to visit her, continues to be ignored, is raped by her mom's boyfriend, becomes pregnant. There was not enough depth displayed of this situation. Too much of time is taken up on the chase with the truckers transporting the baby. (Interesting, this baby with asthma--you never see him cry-- except once--, be fed, have is diaper changed during the whole truck transport ordeal.) I would have liked to have seen more of the interrelationships, more focus on the fact that this girl was a minor--this should have stood up in court immediately.<br /><br />And this was a true story! It deserved a better telling than that!!<br /><br />If it weren't for the subject matter, I would have given this closer to a 0 rating. I rented this from the library. Only later I found out it was a made for TV movie. <br /><br />oh well

Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!<br /><br />But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.<br /><br />The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay. <br /><br />Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me. <br /><br />The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.<br /><br />For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here. <br /><br />Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life. <br /><br />Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money. <br /><br />I even regret renting the movie.

This movie is sort of similar to "Better Off Dead" as it has some of the same stars. This one though isn't quite as good. Granted it is rather funny and enjoyable, there is something about "Better...that I like, well better. This one has these guys going to Nantucket to spend there summer vacation. While there they meet this girl who's trying to save here house from this guy who wants to turn it into a lobster restaurant. This guy really doesn't seem to like lobsters, cause in one scene he sticks it into boiling water and puts in a stethoscope so he can hear it scream. The main character is torn between this girl and the girl of the son of the guy who wants to make the restaurant. Somehow or another this leads to a big boat race showdown, kind of like in "Summer Rental" though it works a bit better here and fits into the plot a little better. Though what is the deal with boat races at this time? Was there some weird fascination with them? For the most part this movie delivers laughs at a good clip, but "Better Off Dead" was still better cause it was the first and the jokes worked better.

I walked into the movie theater, with no expectations for the film I was about to witness, "Everything is Illuminated". I walked out with a joy I have barely come to feel with American films. The directorial debut of actor, Leiv Schreiber, the film follows a man on his journey through the past, accompanied by an eccentric group including a brake-dancing barely English-speaking punk from the Eukraine, his grandfather who believes he is blind, and their crazy dog. The first half of the film is funny and smart with an extremely European flavor in the usage of small but wonderful characters, while the second half of the film descends into a somber story of discovery and the holocaust. This little movie brings out so many emotions, and so many colors, with such a wonderful conclusion and is more than just a story of illumination, but also of relationships and connections. The acting is incredibly powerful, the story mysterious and interesting, and the artistic appeal of the cinematography, to die for. With some brilliant and absolutely touching scenes "Everything is Illuminated" managed to capture my heart.

Buster Keaton was arguably at his most enjoyable when he did short 20 minute films, and they don't come more rib-ticklingly funny than this gem. The dead pan comic gets involved in a photographic mix-up with a wanted felon. This leads to his elaborate evasion of several street cops and fellow passengers who recognise the his face from the "Wanted" signs. The Goat is choc-a-bloc with brilliant site gags, from the opening scene at the bread queue, right up to the wonderful elevator chase at the end. A Keaton film never feels as though its silence is lacking, as sound is never something you needed with him. His movies explain themselves through the wonderful (yet incredibly dangerous) things he did to himself. It isn't hard to see just how influential he really was - the man is every bit as thoroughly amazing today as he was in 1921.

A beautiful woman, a backwoods, inbred monster man, a super sweet monster truck, a road kill zombie brother and 2 friends...one anal retentive, overly sensitive nerd and the other a foul mouthed, adolescent slob. Throw them all together with a dash of Jeepers Creepers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Road Trip and you've got Monster Man. A hilarious horror/comedy outing that never sets out to "say something". It's a simple, straight forward laugh fest. Unpretentious and well made, this horror/comedy is at its heart, a buddy flick. This film offered some hilarious and sickening set pieces. I highly recommend this to fright fans looking to be entertained.

Ok, even if you can't stand Liza- this movie is truly hilarious! The scenes with John Gielgud make up for Liza. One of the true romantic comedy classics from the 20th century. Dudley Moore makes being drunk and irresponsible look cute and amusing and it is damn fun to watch! The one-liners are the best.

This was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.<br /><br />In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to.