Datasets:

abhi227070

/

imdb-dataset

like 0

I loved this movie! I'm shocked and disappointed that it never made it to the theaters. Every story was better than the last..much better than the much hyped "Scream" series and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"and way better than the terrible "Urban Legend". I'd recommend this film to every horror fan.

This movie was horrible and the only reason it was even made was because the story appealed to the far-left. I consider my self a moderate, so I was able to see this film as the pile of garbage it was. While I'm not a Bush fan, your dislike for GW is not enough of a reason to see this movie.<br /><br />To start, the movie was shot on such low-grade film that it comes off as cheap, rather then artsy. Additionally, the characters are seriously lacking in depth. Chris Cooper's character was a poor parody of George Bush; better suited for Saturday Night Live then a Dramatic film. The rest of the characters are walking clichés and are poor facsimiles of other characters from much better movies.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs!

slow, incomprehensible, boring. Three enthusiastic words that describe the movie of the book. This is surely a case where the movie should never have been made at the expense of the book. The best part of the movie was the scenery, excellent. The worst part was the slow moving interactions of the actors which combined with endless meaningful glances. The editing is abrupt and patchy. However, despite this, the actors worked very hard at least trying to be a little believable with a terrible script. It was startling that although set in Peru there was hardly a person of Peruvian descent wandering about the set - even in the flashback scenes depicting Peru in the 17th century. If you have any sense of history, try to avoid this movie.

Kubrick again puts on display his stunning ability to craft a perfect ambiance for a film. Mainly through cinematography, but also using an ingenious score, he creates a chilling and ominous tone that resides over the entire film and thoroughly gets my spine tingling from the start. It really is this flawless ambiance that makes The Shining the masterpiece that it is, in my eyes. Of course it doesn't hurt that Jack Nicholson gives one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. A frighteningly authentic portrayal of a mind gone mad. Duvall and Lloyd are artificial, to be nice, but it's easy to look past those two when the rest of the film is so brilliant. Plus it features the actor with the greatest name of all time (Scatman Crothers).

OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie!

I suppose the ultimate curse of attending the Toronto Film Festival is your release date time table get messed up. Quite frankly, I'm just happy Fido got picked up for US distribution. In any case...<br /><br />Ever seen Shaun of the Dead? Good. How about Lassie? Able to reconcile the two? Well, if you can your name might be Andrew Currie, Canadian helmer of the first ever family themed zombie comedy, or zomedy. (Seriously, that's what the press book in Toronto called it.) Though not as violent, dry, or British as Shaun of the Dead, Fido remains true to its roots: a devotion to old 50s black and white television including both Lassie and the infamous sci-fi pulp that was being pumped out during the period.<br /><br />Fido's talented headliners (Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connelly, Dylan Baker, and Tim Blake Nelson) stand as a testament to the brilliance of the script. The film explores all the implications of its premise: a world where zombies have been converted to servants because of the sheer number of them due to a strange accident. What would you use your new undead servant for? A butler? Manual labor? A pet? Unspeakable acts? Fido tackles all these possibilities in a sweet and surprisingly classy way, with much thanks to the work of Connelly (as one of said zombies) and young TV actor K'Sun Ray, who seems at times to be a better young Elijah Wood than the young Elijah Wood was.<br /><br />If you're expecting another Shaun of the Dead, don't waste your time. There's not nearly enough gore and pokes at the genre to satisfy you and you'll just leave the theater bitter and depressed. But if you're willing to take a look at what happens to Shaun of the Dead when it jumps across the lake, you're in for a treat. Think of Fido as the sensitive, more often beaten up little brother to Shaun of the Dead's rebellious loser, and you're starting to get the drift. If you like (or at least tolerate) zombies, small children, and loads of deadpan satire, Fido's the film for you. If that's not the case....well, you know the drill. Just hit 'em square between the eyes.

New rule. Nobody is allowed to make any more Zombie movies unless they actually come up with an original idea.<br /><br />Sadly, this movie doesn't. They have the premise that Bounty hunters go out and kill Zombies and prove it by cutting off their fingers. Well, problems with that. Most people have ten fingers, why not just collect ten bounties for one Zombie? Why not just kill a regular person and pass that off as a Zombie finger? <br /><br />Not to mention the utter silliness of hunting zombies with a bolt action rifle.<br /><br />I sometimes think films like this are resume fillers for makeup and FX guys. "Hey, this is what I did with ten dollars and some recylced bottles deposit. Imagine what I could do if you gave me a BUDGET!" Do you think anyone goes to drama school or cinema school to star in a Zombie movie? "I went to the School of the Arts. Check me out as the "Tunnel Zombie" in "Quick and the Undead"." His mother must be so proud.<br /><br />These had to be the wimpiest Zombies ever, as a whole crowed of them apparently couldn't push down a wooden door or even break a glass window. No, they had to wait for the bounty hunter to open the door for them...

Witchcraft/Witchery/La Casa 4/ and whatever else you wish to call it. How about..Crud.<br /><br />A gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are besieged by the black magic powers of an evil witch killing each individual using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking pictures for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose voice and demeanor resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an incredibly rude bitch)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert Champagne, who is always ogling other women much younger than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just looks bored throughout, probably wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of starring in this rubbish), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet wet. Along with these folks is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in Black(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra thick)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, I guess)with everyone stuck in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of repairs. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others light the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a "diseased" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.

I think that COMPLETE SAVAGES is a very good TV show and they should make many more episodes. It is one of my favourites!!!! It is very funny and it is really good acting. I say that you should give them a chance to do more episodes. Iknow that they can and they should!!!! They should put COMPLETE SAVAGES on NICKELODEON more than what they do! I'm sure that many people will agree with me!!!!! I like the TV show because it is a very good programme for people our age and it is very funny. I also like COMPLETE SAVAGES because it isn't always about the same thing and things that happen could be real, unlike other YV programmes. When they advertised it, I didn't like the sound of it, but I watched it for the first time and I loved it. COMPLETE SAVAGES is an excellent comedy and I miss it being on TV!!!!!!!!!! I can't really compare COMPLETE SAVAGES with any other TV series because it is different!!!!

The sequel that no one asked for to the movie no one wanted. There are obviously too many flaws with this movie to name here, so I'll just concentrate on the acting. Miles O'Keefe would have been better suited to play the spritely Asian sidekick Thong, mainly because he would then have no dialogue. Lisa Foster delivers her lines displaying one emotion, dullness. Charles Borremel brings life to his part by pausing every five words. And finally the flamboyant, John Saxon-type guy......no comment is needed.<br /><br />See "Conan the Barbarian" if you need to, but don't waste your time with this low-budget loser.

The person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy.

I looked forward to watching this film since I loved the David Lynch version. In my first attempt at watching it I fell asleep. Nothing was happening. The next night I tried to watch the rest, and again it was putting me to sleep! Nothing ever happened in this movie that could keep anyone's interest alive. The only time it got a bit more exciting was when I tried it on Fast Forward! The DVD came with a second disk which contained bonus material. Needless to say, I had no hard to go through the torture of watching more of Dune (2000). Here are the low points: The acting was bad, the plot moved in slow motion, the sets were and looked cheap, the direction was pathetic, and the CGI visual effects childish.<br /><br />If you want to watch Dune, save your money or rent the 1984 version.

This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, "Oh, silly you" style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess.

-=contains spoiler from both original and movie versions=-<br /><br />i am a huge fan of Notre dame De Paris musical,i also read book this summer and i watched movie today,in the beginning i was hopeful to watch a good film especially when i saw 6.3 IMDb point.first scenes were good but i actually waited for,theaters scene directly from book,but it was normal but when Esmeralda kisses gringoire i felt something is wrong..they don't even kiss in book,even in musical..<br /><br />and there were huge gap why Esmeralda being judged by sorcerer,in the book she teaches her goat how to respond numbers of clock or write word "phoebus".. wait there were a phoebus weren't there? in this movie he is some soldier junk nothing more,the creators made Quasimodo's love to show around and they even canceled Frollo's love..but Notre dame was frollo. his thoughts his struggles between love of god and love of human in movie we cant find anything like that all we have is,some villain who is really bad and kills people whose clashes with his thoughts..and not mentioning phoebus,not mentioning love of frollo,not mentioning jehan (brother of frollo) not mentioning mother of Esmeralda (maybe it is OK,the storyline would have chopped much)they even not mentioned the real story.. (another PS:frollo wasn't a opus dei or some cult member he actually in interest with alchemy he tries to make gold..he was stuck in science and religion)<br /><br />finally don't watch this movie,it is some kind of directors edition to real masterpiece,and if you have watched it before read the book,god have mercy on you..you must read to book immediately..<br /><br />this movie is worse than hunchback of Notre dame II the animated movie,spend your time with watching Notre dame De Paris musical.. enough said..

I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film.

After the success of Part 4, another sequel was a natural move. However they should have stopped it before it began. Alice, having survived Part 4 finds herself pregnant and it seems Freddy is using her unborn child to get at his victims, which of course are Alice's friends. Strange Nightmare movie, very heavy on religious imagery and bad acting. The special effects are good, but the movie itself is not.

This early version of the tale 'The Student of Prague' was made in Germany in 1913, starring Paul Wegener (who was also in 'The Golem' a few years later). In this film he plays a dual role (technically impressive for a 95 year old film to see them in the same shot) after meeting a mysterious old man who makes a pact with him for gold - the gold he needs to woo a countess he's previously saved from drowning.<br /><br />Moving at a fast pace (the film runs just over an hour) and fairly well written and characterised, 'The Student of Prague' has echoes of the Faust legend as well as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, starting as it does with a pact with a mysterious figure of potential evil, and developing into good and evil sides of the same person.

But if you like the muppets I defy you to dislike this one. Basically the same plot regurgitated (this time New York, not LA) it features a lot of fun cameos and muppet hi-jinx. A lot of the muppets leave the film pretty early on as it centers around Kermy and Miss Piggy. I happened to have enjoyed it greatly. Fun to watch with your kids.

Here's another of the 1940's westerns that I watch whenever it comes on TCM or FMC, because although it may be flawed historically, it is extremely entertaining and well acted, plus it's got Randolph Scott, my favorite actor second only to Gary Cooper-Well, OK, fourth behind COOP, Charlton Heston, and Gregory Peck. But the film itself, to me anyway, is reasonably historically accurate and as I said before, well acted and "flows" very well-I bet I've seen it 50 or 60 times, and enjoy each viewing more than the one before. I have it on tape from TCM but would buy it in a minute if it ever came out on DVD. See it if you haven't- I guarantee you'll like it!

I was looking through the movie listings in my area on yahoo and seen a movie that had not been advertised. I looked closer and noticed that Peter Falk and Paul Reiser were in it. Having watched "Mad about you", once, I was not a fan of Paul Reiser. However, I am a big fan of Peter Falk. So the spouse and I took a chance. We were both swept into this story. The beautiful scenery, the heartfelt acting and the sense of family and moral values that are seldom seen in movies and the world today. Not that sappy emoted junk, but real life situations from real life-like people. I even have to say, Paul Reiser was excellent, although, I still won't watch "Mad about you". I don't know where this movie has gone. I heard it was put out in limited release. It should be shared with the world. It is one of the finest movies I have seen. M.

My girlfriend and I are really into cheesy horror flicks. Especially ones with lots of unnecessary nudity. When we saw the box cover for this movie at blockbuster we thought it would be a perfect movie for the night. We began watching it, already not expecting it to be GREAT, but thought it would at least catch our interest. 20 minutes into the movie we realized that the pace would not eventually pick up and that it was an incredibly boring movie. We tried to get into it, but the plot made very little sense even after reading the back of the DVD box over and over again. The film was shot very dark and it was pretty annoying to try to figure out what was going on in each shot. Each violent scenes were very hard to make out, and you never get to actually watch the violence you're expecting. This is definitely a film without motive that was shot poorly and very drawn out. Each scene was about 20 minute of the same thing and I felt I got the point after the first 5. Skip this film and re-watch another Freddy or Jason flick and you'll be way more content.

Just kidding.<br /><br />Seeking greener pastures in the form of hustling in New York City, Jon Voight is young optimist Cowboy (almost Forest Gump-like) Joe Buck from Texas. It does not take long for the Big Apple to mercilessly swallow him and his ambitions whole and very soon Joe is the target of both the coldness of New Yorkers and cons from its street-thugs. Given his pure heart, he takes pity on one of these thugs, Ratso Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman) and later moves in with him in his wreck of apartment and the two literally struggle to survive.<br /><br />While Midnight Comedy is labeled as a drama, it is best described as either a tragic comedy or a comedic tragedy in my opinion. It is above all a beautiful film that is stylish in capturing the contemporary hippie-vibe of the late 1960s with its mandatory dizzying Warhol-party cinematography and juxtaposing it with ultra-urban New York City. The film crams Cowboy Joe Buck somewhere in between, thereby emphasizing his out-of-place position. We feel for his struggle to fit in, but also to merely get enough money to feed Ratso Rizzo.<br /><br />Midnight Cowboy brought tears to my eyes as it is also rich in substance and projects a lot of heart. I imagine this film must have inspired both Forest Gump with its pure-hearted and out-of-place lead character and, to an extent, the Crocodile Dundee films as it deals with almost the exact same kind of humour - a contrast between country-cowboys and slick New York cosmopolitans. Very compelling and sensationally creative film that I highly recommend.<br /><br />8.5/10

i found it highly intellectual and artistic in every way! i felt that the script was conveying all the things i feel physically and emotionally when i got home from work and watched, it. this is a tribute to cinema in the highest form and format.<br /><br />holy guacamole! how i wish those days would come again. i tried putting a bubble window on the side of my car (honda civic 1984), but the vacuum formed muffin trays didn't quite cut it. also in my civic, sexual positions are limited and are not supported by water bed as is brilliantly depicted in 'the van'.<br /><br />'the van' is of the utmost side splitting hilarity and can even substitute for porn if you watch some scenes privately.<br /><br />i highly anticipate that Sam Grossman (the director) has achieved his opus.<br /><br />Ratings john: ****1/2 Sam: *****

One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...<br /><br />1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.<br /><br />2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.<br /><br />3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.<br /><br />4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.<br /><br />5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).<br /><br />6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.<br /><br />7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.<br /><br />8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.<br /><br />9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.<br /><br />10. Under the guise of "re-establishing democracy", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.<br /><br />11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chávez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.<br /><br />12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.<br /><br />13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.<br /><br />14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.<br /><br />8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of "media warfare" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to "The Battle of Algiers".<br /><br />Worth one viewing.

I saw this film in the movie theater. I was taking classes at the Second City Chicago and of course the buzz of this movie was intense. It is a Woodward film about one of Second City's Native sons.<br /><br />Everyone knew about Johns history. Everyone knew how he died. Some even knew that the lore did not make him out to be particularly friendly towards women in improv or comedy.<br /><br />But hey. the man led his life and he was loved intensely by the people who were in his world, and lore also states that he treated all of his close friends with love and respect.<br /><br />This movie. Well. Forget the idea of poor Michael Chilklis (who is a really great actor) being in a really astonishingly bad film, and really only relegated to doing an impersonation of the man.<br /><br />Forget the idea that they could not get the rights to any of Belushi's work...and all the SNL scenes never happened that they portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Screw the idea that half of the historical information in the film did not even follow Bob Woodwards work. Kinda saying "Okay...we are about to mess with Belushi...now lets go after Woodward too..." They also decided to take the premise of It's a Wonderful Life and turn it into It's a Horrible Life on Crack.<br /><br />Is he a guardian angel or the devil? Is the pinball machine the devil's assistant electronic device...how many different endings can you tack onto to a movie? It is one of those movies after it is over...you look at the person you are with and in stunned disbelief go "What the hell was that?!" In some circles this movie has become a kinda cult classic. But for good reason.<br /><br />A good cult classic you sit around the screen and make fun of (or throw out snappy one liners) to the screen. A cult film is never good. And most people would never watch them in any serious context.<br /><br />If you want to watch some classic bad late 80's fair stoned? Rent Wired. If you want to know about John Belushi...you can get more information off of the walls of Second City Chicago than this movie.

Or vice-versa.<br /><br />This is a French film noir directed by an American film maker (Jules Dassin) who had to leave the country because of being blacklisted by Hollywood thanks to HUAC. The premise of the story is rather familiar--one last jewel heist for Tony le Stephanois and his buds--and so is the ending with everybody getting... Well, no spoilers here, for sure, since this is the sort of film in which tension toward the ending is important.<br /><br />Dassin filmed in realistic lighting in black and white on the streets of Paris using actors and actresses who are not glamorous. The engaging--sometimes intruding--score by Georges Auric nicely enhances the movie and will remind viewers of many a similar score from American film noirs from the forties and early fifties. Jean Servais plays the hardcore, consumptive lead in a fedora much as Humphrey Bogart might have played him. Tony's recently out of prison, past his prime, but still tough and decisive when he has to be, his mind still sharp when focused, the kind of anti-hero whose eyes water even though the tears will never fall.<br /><br />Dassin plays the Italian safecracker and would-be ladies man who knows the rules but gets careless.<br /><br />In film noir we are forced by the logic and focus of the film to identify with the bad guys. Often there are levels of bad guys, the "good" bad guys we are identifying with and the "bad" bad guys who are out to do in our good bad guys, and then maybe there's a really bad, bad bad guy or two. (Here we have Remi Grutter, played by Robert Hossein, a slightly sadistic druggie.) Then there are the cops who are irrelevant or nearly so. In more modern film noir the bad guys are not even "good" bad guys, and they get away with it or something close to that. In the old film noir, which evolved from the gangster films of the thirties, the usual motto, following the old Hollywood "code," was "Crime Doesn't Pay," with every criminal having to pay for his or her crime before the end of the movie.<br /><br />Probably the most impressive feature of Rififi is how nicely the film moves along. The plot unfolds quickly and seamlessly much the way the great film directors always did it, directors like Stanley Kubrick, Louis Malle, and the best of Hitchcock. Some have actually compared this to Kubrick's The Killing (1956) and suggest that Kubrick stole a little. Well, directors always steal if need be, and there are some perhaps telling similarities, such as it being "one last heist" for the protagonist, and having the girl gum up the works. The similarities may go deeper because as this film was nearing its end I suddenly thought, oh, no! the suitcase in the back seat is going to fly out of the convertible, hit the ground, burst open, and all the money is going to fly into the air! Those of you who have seen The Killing may recall what happened to the money near the end of the film! Which reminds me of another film with something bad happening to the money: Oliver Stone's U Turn (1997) starring Sean Penn. There the money in his backpack gets blown to smithereens by a shotgun blast. Ha, ha, ha! Getting the dubbed version of this film would be an act of sacrilege since the dialogue (when there is some: the heist itself is done entirely without dialogue, about 30 minutes worth) is terse and easy to follow requiring only an occasional glance at the subtitles, which, by the way, are quite utilitarian and guiding as opposed to having every word spelled out.<br /><br />One other thing: all the brutality is done as sex used to be done in film, that is off camera. A guy gets his throat slit. We don't see it. I kind of like this approach. We don't have to see the gore. You could almost let your kids see Rififi--almost.<br /><br />Catch this one now and be on the lookout for a Hollywood reprise starring Al Pacino and directed by Harold Becker coming out next year in which you can be sure that the violent scenes will be played out in full.

This movie has some of the best dialogue ever written. The really good lines are all given to George C. Scott, a man who knew what to do with a juicy piece of dialogue. I just saw this movie again, for the first time in 20+ years, and the dialogue is as good as ever. The bizarre goings-on at the hospital are so imaginative as to dazzle you. They frequently involve such marvelous poetic justice as to be near strokes of genius. I love this movie!!

The Mummy's Curse is the last in the series of the Kharis mummy films, and it seems that creativity had run somewhat dry by the time they made this one. Kharis and his mate Ananka both end up in the bayous of Louisiana, and on his resurrection, he searches out his beloved princess. How they end up in Louisiana isn't made entirely clear, but with various people trying to find them, the viewer can be assured of some mummy murders.<br /><br />The Mummy's Curse was watchable, but it really wasn't anything special. I had the feeling throughout the movie that I'd seen this before. Quite frankly, apart from the original The Mummy with Boris Karloff, the Mummy movies are not my favorites among the old Universal horrors. They're not bad, but they do get a bit repetitive.<br /><br />There are some great scenes in the movie (the scene with Ananka coming to life in the swamp for instance) but overall this didn't do much for me.<br /><br />It's worth seeing if you want to be completest and see all of the mummy movies, but otherwise you might want to pass on this one.

About the movie itself, there are ample comments. <br /><br />I just wanted to say something about the German version, which I have seen recently on TV. It is heavily cut. From 103 to 76 minutes! It is usual that the most bloody scenes are cut for German TV. I understand the reasons for that, but this movie was something else. They did not only cut "gore-shots" - they have cut entire sequences, sparing only glimpses. Like: "WE have to attack THEM" - one 5 second shot of explosions in the camp - protagonist running away.<br /><br />When the assault on the island begins, it isn't even possible anymore to follow the storyline. All the cuts create something that amounts to a string of erratic, disconnected scenes that don't make any sense anymore.<br /><br />I could not stand to watch the end after spending 60 minutes on this nonsense.<br /><br />I think I would have given the original 7/10 The German version is worth only 1/10<br /><br />Get it on DVD (and check the runtime first) or forget about it.

This TVM seems to have polarised opinions amongst the commentators on this page so perhaps I can settle everything by saying this is a very stupid not very well made television movie . How bad is it ? It's a teleplay that can't even decide what its name is because while everyone in America calls it LINDA it's known in Britain as LUST FOR MURDER and it's usually a bad sign when a movie has to change its name . And can I also point out that it's not a tongue in cheek spoof as somebody else claimed <br /><br />I will be honest and say the plot is rather sound . Linda and Paul Cowley meet another couple called the Jeffries who they get on very well with . They get on so well that they go on holiday together ( Make up your own mind if there's some wife swapping going on ) and Paul sees his wife kill the Jeffries . After that the plot takes a shock twist <br /><br />Writing the above paragraph I have suddenly realised the large amount of potential the story had and I won't say anything to put you off the premise . It's just that when the story continues after the events I've described things become more and more unlikely and bizarre . Not only that but the production values are fairly unimpressive with the actor playing Paul Cowley doing a very wooden voice over that irritates while most of the scenes - Exterior and interior - look like they've been filmed on a foggy day

<br /><br />Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.<br /><br />One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.<br /><br />Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.<br /><br />The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end.

It is the best movie released in Bollywood upto date. The best comedy, the best acting and the best direction till now! Rajkumar Santoshi's writing and direction proved that he is one of the best directors in the industry. Aamir Khan was absolutely amazing, Salman Khan looked good the way he acted. Shakti Kapoor was good, but Jagdeep over acted as usual! This comedy is still copied by people and no other writers and directors have been able to make this thing again! Even Rajkumar Santoshi hasn't been able to make this cult classic again! This movie was a flop when it released but it has been a cult classic since it released and loved by all kinds of people.<br /><br />STAR.<br /><br />ACTING 10/10.<br /><br />DIALOGUES 10/10.<br /><br />SCREENPLAY 10/10.<br /><br />DIRECTION 10/10.<br /><br />MUSIC 9/10.<br /><br />LYRICS 9/10.<br /><br />Overall, This movie is strongly recommended. If you didn't watch it till now, you missed something big! It is a laugh riot and the best comedy i have seen till date! Classic Films like Hera Pheri, Golmaal and Jaane Bhi Do Jaaro are not even half as funny as this.<br /><br />GREAT MOVIE, HATS OFF!!!!

This was a highly original decent movie, and a brave move for all those involved. I don't care if it's not the most well put-together movie of all time, the fact that it has Eddie Murphy doing something non-formulaic, and that I don't know what will happen next, makes it a favorite of mine. I wish more movies were as imaginative as this one, rather than the same old formula for entertainment.

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

I have loved One True Thing since the first time I watched it in the theater, and cried my eyes out. I bought it as soon as it was available, and have lost track of how many times I've watched it.<br /><br />To me One True Thing is the ultimate family relationship movie. I love watching the relationships in the family change and evolve into what they end up being. I can relate to many details in the movie. My mother died of bone cancer, so it really hits home with me. Maybe this is why I love it so much.<br /><br />I like the relationships between the children and their parents, and the relationship of brother and sister, but especially love the relationship between husband and wife. To me it is truly beautiful.<br /><br />I highly recommend this move to anyone who enjoys this kind of movie.

The cinema of the 60s was as much as time of revolution as the politics and the music. Filmmakers were daring to make avant-garde films discussing taboo subjects only permitted before in exploitation films. Starting with both "Breathless" and underground American cinema (such as Kenneth Anger), films became more and more experimental. All of this accumulated when Hollywood realized they had mass commercial appeal with "Easy Rider". One of the best (and most surprising) outputs of this era was also one of the least successful initially. "Head" was made when The Monkees career was seriously waning, which is what damned one of the best psychedelic films ever made.<br /><br />The plot? Well, there really isn't one, as many have said. It involves The Monkees going from one surreal scenario to the next one. However, these sequences are all obviously LSD-tinged and basically mock how The Monkees were sick of being confined to their light pre-fab reputation. Its a shame that the film found no audience. The teeny boppers who loved them had moved onto a new fad as they always do. The psychedelic / Haight-Ashbury crowd to whom the film was garnered would never be caught dead at a Monkees movie. Its all their loss. This film may be plot less, but it is certainly not without meaning and is very intelligently put together. The crew later made both "Easy Rider" and "Five Easy Pieces". The film was later revived at a 1973 Raybert retrospective and it gained a very positive response, which granted it the cult following it had deserved for a long time. Ironically, The Monkees would fall victim to the same commercialism they protested in this film with their later 80s reunion. (10/10)

I'm not to keen on The Pallbearer, it's not too bad, but just very slow at the times. As the movie goes on, it gets a little more interesting, but nothing brilliant. I really like David Schwimmer and I think he's good here. I'm not a massive Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but I don't mind her sometimes and she's okay here. The Pallbearer is not a highly recommended movie, but if you like the leads then you might enjoy it.

Frankly I met real Han Su Ying before and seeing her portrayed by an American actress which has no resemblance of anything Chinese makes my head spin while I am watching this movie Why can't Hollywood get Nancy Kwan instead .... at least its more true to the story...cos for goodness sake...Dr Han Su Ying is Chinese I know cos I have meet her in person<br /><br />and looking at the whole cast....so few Asian faces in a movie about a Asian love story makes me wonder too <br /><br />I think the acting is good but without real Asian faces in a Asian love story makes the plot so corny and a whole load of Baloney<br /><br />its just like another movie I know of ' THE CONQUEROR' imagine my eyes pop out when I see John Wayne as Genghis Khan!!!!!<br /><br />and to make matter worst ....how on earth can a man born an bred in MONGOLIAN STEPPES come up with a Alabama southern accent??? !! and a cheap imitation of anything Asian<br /><br />Good Grief<br /><br />I am not surprise that one day I will see Dr Martin Luther King Jr being played by One of the boys from the black and white minstrel show<br /><br />Would love to see that<br /><br />and laugh the whole roof off !!!<br /><br />Cheers

Well groomed, well behaved teen Meg Tilly must spend the night in a creepy mausoleum as an initiation into a high school club. Problem is a powerful psychic named Raymar was just buried there that day, but he isn't quite dead and he needs the life force of humans for his powers.<br /><br />Obscure horror film offers plenty of thrills and chills, an appealing and likeable cast, and most superior special effects.<br /><br />My rating: 7 out of 10.<br /><br />One Dark Night is rated R for Violence and Adult Themes.

Burlinson and Thornton give an outstanding performance in this movie, along with Dennehy. Although it is at first thought to be only about love, it really goes down deeper than that. The beauty of nature captures this movie, placing among one of the best I have ever seen. The horse scenes are absolutely fantastic!! Any horse-lovers out there will love this movie!<br /><br />

This may sound crazy to even the people who remember this show...But I remembered this as being live-action. I don't think I ever saw the cartoon. but movie? maybe. I remember it very clearly. The guy was in a building kinda like a showroom. He even had the red jacket. It was dark out and he turned into a red car and there was this guy on the second level looking down at him. The car/guy spun around and crashed through the big showroom type window and out onto the street. And then proceeded to drive off. That is all I remember. I really hope someone else out there remembers this too. If not, Maybe I'm still crazy. But I'm hoping I'm not.

While possibly the stupidest, most tasteless, and violent slapstick comedy ever made, Guest House is also a very funny one. Don't listen to the critics, they have no sense of humour. While the climax runs out of steam (but not vomit), it's still a funny party movie. Seven candles in the eye out of ten.

This movie had an interesting cast, it mat not have had an a list cast but the actors that were in this film did a good job. Im glad we have b grade movies like this one, the story is basic the actors are basic and so is the way they execute it, you don't need a million dollar budget to make a film just a mix of b list ordinary actors and a basic plot. I like the way they had the street to themselves and that there was no one else around and also what i though was interesting is that they didn't close down a café to set there gear and that they did it all from a police station. Arnold vosloo and Michael madsen did a great job at portraying there roles in the hostage situation. This was a great film and i hope to see more like it in the near future.

What can be said, really... "The Tenant" is a first-class thriller wrought with equal amounts of suspense and full-blown paranoia. It's an intricately-plotted film--every detail seems included for a reason--even though the plot seldom makes sense, and much of it is never even addressed in an objective manner. Therefore we are left with the increasingly unstable Trelkovsky (Polanski)--a meek Polish man who has obtained an apartment due to the previous tenant's suicide--to guide us through a world of escalating fear and uncertainty. After an apartment-warming party thrown by a group of obnoxious coworkers, Trelkovsky comes under increased, seemingly inexplicable scrutiny by the fellow occupants in his building; the rest of the film chronicles his mental deterioration and gives us a thorough mindfu*k on par with the later efforts of David Lynch. "The Tenant," however, is more brooding and sinister, laced with unexpected comic relief, fine performances, and a truly haunting score. It's a movie that's better experienced than described, so hop to it.

This movie is a good example of the extreme lack of good writers and directors in Hollywood. The fact that people were paid to make this piece of junk shows that there is a lack of original ideas and talent in the entertainment business. The idea that audiences paid to see this movie (and like an idiot I rented the film) is discouraging also.<br /><br />Obsessed teacher (3 years prior) kills teenager's family because he wants her. For no reason he kills the mother, father and brother. From the first five minutes you see the bad acting and direction. Years later, obsessed teacher breaks out of prison. HMM--usual bad writing--no one in the town he terrorized knows until the last minute. Obsessed teacher somehow becomes like a Navy SEAL and can sneak around, sniff out people and with a knife is super killer. Sure!!! Now obsessed teacher kills hotel maid for no reason, knifes bellhop for the fun of it, and starts to hunt down the teenager's friends. Now there is the perfect way to get the girl to love you. Obsessed teacher sneaks out of hotel---again it is stupid, ever cop would know his face--but he walks right by them. Now he kills two cops outside teenager's house and somehow sneaks into her bedroom and kills her boyfriend.<br /><br />There is not one single positive thing about this piece of garbage. If any other profession put out work of this low quality, they would be fired. Yet these idiots are making hundreds of thousands of dollars for writing and directing this trash.

I liked the quiet noir of the first part, the acting of Pacino and Cusak, especially their scenes together. The moodiness of the setting and the juxtaposition of the old pol and the idealistic youth was effecting. I wish Bridget Fonda had more scenes in the movie; she was an earnest and appealing character. The film went off the rails for me when the assistant mayor starting snooping around the mafioso to get to the bottom of something his boss clearly didn't want him meddling in. Nobody in their right mind would meet a mafioso on an abandoned dock in a junkyard. Here the story became implausible. Something that I don't understand: why did the cop and Vito have a shootout if the latter was delivering info that could bring down the corrupt judge?

It's been 3 months and you know what that means...A new Seagal movie. Seagal has really been on role making horrible film after horrible film. Each time every movie getting worse and worse, he's really amazing! I don't really know what to say about TYD, first it's a piece of crap, the story makes no sense at all, secondly he uses stunt men in all his fight scenes, and last but not least a lot of the footage is taken from other movies! It amazes how this guy continues to find work, he comes to the set late and leaves early and because of that his films are full of plot holes and stunt men. Why do we continue to buy his movies, why do we continue to have hope that maybe just maybe he will make a great movie?

I have seen many of Shahrukh's movies and this is a very good role for him. He has such versatility, but he mainly stays in positive roles. As Rahul, he is very dark and disturbing, yet I found myself sympathizing with him much of the movie. If for nothing else, watch this movie for Shahrukh. He plays a very complex and real character very convincingly. The story is very typical and has been done before, but the character development is very strong and entertaining. The opening is a little confusing, but by the end, it doesn't matter. The songs I found very likable and give insight to what characters are thinking. Very clever. I think this movie was very good and recommend it to all Shahrukh Khan fans. It is a must see!

It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good "B" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you.

Yes, Be My Love was Mario Lanza's skyrocket to fame and still is popular today. His voice was strong and steady, so powerful in fact that MGM decided to use him in The Great Caruso. Lanza himself thought he was the reincarnation of Caruso. Having read the book by Kostelanitz who wrote a biography of Lanza, he explains that the constant practise and vocal lessons became the visionary Caruso to Lanza. There is no doubt that Lanza did a superb job in the story, but the story is not entirely true; blame it on Hollywood! I used to practise singing his songs years ago, and became pretty good myself until I lost my voice because of emphysema/asthma ten years ago. Reaching the high note of Be My Love is not easy; but beautiful!

This movie is well made, it is beautiful and wise. It is heart-warming. It is great. And again it shows how great Peter Falk is... he is fantastic and he even gets better, the older he gets! Thank you, Peter Falk! Thank you very much for this gem of a movie! <br /><br />This movie entertains. There is lot of wisdom in this movie. There is lot of humor in this movie. There is life in this movie... and meaning. This movie shows, how life can be.<br /><br />Peter Falk is in that movie. He is just great! Where is the Oscar for Peter Falk? He deserves it so very much.<br /><br />Peter Falk just turned 80. I do sincerely hope that there will be more movies!<br /><br />Walter J. Langbein

Out of boredom and vast curiosity, I decided to check this show out today since my four year old niece loves it. I should have known that it was a show that only a four year old could like. The show was pretty bad.<br /><br />First of all, the show just wasn't funny. The laugh track went off at the most inappropriate times which was very annoying, especially since none of the jokes were funny. The laugh track went off at some point when the one kid who's the cameraman said "I'm going to go polish my lense". How the hell is that funny? The parts in it (like meat drumming) that were supposed to be funny was just stupid to anyone who's over the age of eleven.<br /><br />Now, I have a feeling that four year olds are not the target audience. However, since I have a four year old niece who watches it, this sort of thing concerned me while I was watching it: It doesn't show very good behavior. In the episode I was watching, it shows Sam stealing Carly's sandwich and pushing her down to the ground, just so Carly can stand up and do the same thing back to her. I would not want to see my niece acting that rude. I also don't like the idea of two young girls having a web show where they give out personal information... If this was real, there would be freaks all over her.<br /><br />This show would probably be good and funny to someone who's eleven or younger, but anyone older than that, just stay away from it. I'll give this two stars since I guess I can see how it can be funny to a kid.

So this ugly guy with long, nasty hair and his girlfriend end up in this house and they argue and argue about his old girlfriend. There was suppose to be something scary in it but I didn't see anything scary at all. There is some mention of a demon from the sea but that doesn't go anywhere at all. I wish it did because then it would've taken the tension away from the jealous love triangle. The title of the movie makes it look like it would be a scary and exciting movie but it is so far from it that I couldn't believe it. I waited and waited for it to end and was so happy when it did. It did not live up to the title like it should have so boo hoo hoo. The cover had a cool picture but I shouldn't judge a cheesy movie by its cover.

This was/is an incredible movie, with incredible cast, music, singing, story, etc. It is a tragedy that some arrogant families (the Gerswhins or Premingers) can keep it from being available to generation after generation. I have wanted to see it again all of my life. I just found this site and read why it has not been available. Shame on these families for their pettiness. My wife is from Germany and she has never seen the movie. Neither have my step-children or my grandchildren. It is very sad that a movie of this depth and quality is not available for them to see. Where do these families get off making such a conceited, self-important, egotistical, condescending decision to prohibit generations from enjoying this film, these stars, these performances, this music! Release the video and let them world judge and enjoy!

This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.<br /><br />First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.<br /><br />This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.<br /><br />This was worse than watching a car wreck.

Let me say first of all that I spent a total of about two minutes of my life on a skateboard before I realized I was totally uncoordinated. I've always thought it was cool watching cats that know how to get extreme on 'em do their stuff, but I've never been a skateboarder and have never really followed the sport. That being said, I thought this was a very informative and interesting documentary. Some reviewers have said that these dudes were sort of waving their own flag a bit, but what the hell? It looks to me that these guys probably deserve as much credit as anyone for giving the skateboarding world a jolt and they've provided some good footage of their innovations to back it up. It's great the way viewers are allowed to see these guys both then and now and the footage they shot while they were teens growing up in California provides some interesting nostalgia that goes a bit beyond the sport of skating. I never would have realized where extreme skating came from, but this films sort of ties all the pieces together and gives us an informative documentary. I'm sure it's at least a tad biased, but aren't all documentaries? Worth watching for anyone interested in the sport or, as in my case, anyone who grew up in the 1970's.

Don't be fooled by the silly title folks, this is one sweet ride! A true successor to Tetsuo the Iron Man and Ichi the Killer, this gem starts with a bang and lays the gore on thick until the credits roll. It seems that aliens are taking over people's bodies and modifying them into war-machines, which are then used to fight each other in a twisted game for the amusement of their species. The winner of the battle eats the loser alive. That's mostly it for plot, but who cares when the gore is this good? I have no idea how many buckets of slime were used, but it's disgusting to behold. There is interesting and effective use of stop-motion when the takeovers are in progress, and loving care is lavished on all of the creature and make-up effects. The CGI is a bit limited, but that actually doesn't detract from the overall quality one bit, at least for me. This was truly a fun and stomach-turning film that deserves much praise, and has truly earned its place in the stack of Cult Classics. Find it and watch, you won't be disappointed!

The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.<br /><br />I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.<br /><br />The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.<br /><br />I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit.

Wow, what can I say about this film? It's a lousy piece of crap. I'm surprised that it got rated as high as it did. What's wrong with this film? Here's a better question: What's NOT wrong with this film.<br /><br />The story itself is just crap and cliché. Here's pretty much what it's about...Some kinda nerdy kid with no friends gets picked on, gets killed, and comes back as a scarecrow for revenge. "All" of that is packed into 86 minutes of worthless film. If you haven't seen this movie don't waste your time watching it. Also, the second one isn't much better, so don't bother watching that either...I rated this movie a three because I liked the scarecrow's outfit, not because there was anything good about the movie. I think you get the picture.

... so I thought I'd throw in a few words about William McNamara. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty-whities -- it's obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them -- or less. There's an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. There's a nice bit where he has to chase after Miss Eleniak in the buff, with only his hands cupped over his groin. William McNamara is naturally a little on the skinny side, but he has a nice, generous handful of a booty. Also, there's a moment when he's getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. If you're inclined to do so, and come on, half of the people who choose to watch a movie about Navy men on a "road trip" are. I'd just like thank Dennis Hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. Can William McNamara act? Heck if I know.

Running Out of Time is probably as close to a perfect film as you're ever likely to see out of Hong Kong. All the elements click: a terrific script (by French writers Julien Carbon and Laurent Courtiaud) that even manages to subvert the odd cliché, reliably imaginative direction by Johnnie To, and excellent central performances by Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan, the latter displaying his great comic timing to wonderful effect without ever crossing the line into parody (especially in his exasperated reactions to his superior's abysmal negotiating skills). The supporting cast is fine too, with Yo Yo Mung making a strong impression in a tiny role, and even the often histrionic Waise Lee (looking remarkably, and very aptly, like a bald Andy Lau) reining it in to good effect. It's best not to know too much about the plot going in beyond the basic set-up – with only a few weeks to live, Lau engages in a criminal game with Wan's cop with no easily apparent motive – and just sit back and enjoy the ride: it's certainly worth the fare. It also has one of the most perfect love stories in recent movies, and played in a mere three scenes (the second bus ride is one of the most magical moments of film-making I've seen in ages). There's also a fine score by Raymond Wong as well. The most fun playing cat and mouse at the movies in years.

Any movie that offers Bonnie Hunt, Sarah Silverman and Amy Sedaris in the supporting cast has to be well worth watching, and comic actor Jeff Garlin takes advantage of the terrific talent he recruited for his 2007 directorial debut, a sad-sack comedy about an overweight man who feels out of step with the world around him. Familiar as Larry David's manager Jeff on "Curb Your Enthusiasm", Garlin plays James, a still-struggling, 39-year old Chicago actor who still lives with his widowed mother. His self-esteem is so low that he can't meet women, but it's the comical way he views his single status that makes his dilemma involving. If the storyline sounds a bit familiar, that's because the film is partially a tribute to the 1955 Ernest Borgnine classic, "Marty", about a lonely Bronx butcher living with his meddlesome mother. In fact, Garlin uses "Marty" as the play which James is desperate to do since he is so empathetic to the character's situation.<br /><br />Naturally there is a love story of sorts in this new millennium version, and Silverman plays Beth, an off-kilter, sexually voracious ice cream parlor server who takes him on an underwear shopping spree. Their best scene together is in his favorite convenience store where they improvise different characters in different aisles. Hunt plays a lonely elementary school teacher who shares a passion with James for jazz musician Ben Webster. They meet accidentally in a record store and then again at a career day at her school where he hilariously exposes his sexual neuroses in front of a classroom of first-graders, including his best friend Luca's pert daughter Penelope (played by Dakota Fanning's look-alike baby sister Elle). In a wedged-in cameo and looking quite a bit like Jerri Blank, Sedaris plays the school's counselor who speaks to James after his inappropriate monologue. David Pasquesi plays Luca, a retirement home manager, and his scenes with Garlin have an easy rapport that makes their friendship easy to believe. Almost stealing the movie is character actress Mina Kolb, who plays James' pixilated mother with pluck and heart.<br /><br />There are also unexpected cameos from teen idol Aaron Carter and Gina Gershon (don't ask…but the set-up is funny), as well as sharply played bits by director Paul Mazursky (as the snaky director of a candid-camera-type show, "Smear Job"), Tim Kazurinsky (as the unsuspecting victim of that show) and Dan Castellaneta (as the tough-love convenience store owner). With his rueful bouts of insecurity and self-loathing, Garlin's comic sensibilities resemble those of Albert Brooks, and the casual dialogue at its best reminds me of "Modern Romance" and "Defending Your Life". The one persistent problem I had with the film is pacing as some scenes dragged out longer than necessary. The problem is more evident in the first half when Garlin is trying to establish the right tempo, and the lack of real conflict adds to the sluggishness. Regardless, what he does well is capture that gnawing sense of desperation one feels upon the revelation that life is not what it is supposed to be, that a significant other may be out of reach, and that a steady diet of junk food eaten on a car hood is the only sure thing when it comes to gratification.

You would really need to remember the Monkees and have a clear understanding as to where and how they fitted into the second half of the 1960s in order to fully appreciate this movie.<br /><br />There is no plot as such. Basically, it's a crazy, mixed up pastiche of various, unrelated sequences. But, it IS interesting AND entertaining in its own peculiar way once you get onto its wavelength. In short, it was a classic, cleverly conceived and well crafted example of late '60s experimental cinema. It contains some good songs, some ultra-groovy cinematography and plenty of other worthwhile ideas in terms of film technique.<br /><br />I give it 7 out of 10 for several reasons. First, it took a lot of courage to make such an unorthodox movie in the commercial mainstream where both its stars and its producers were firmly ensconced at the time. If a feature movie flops at the box office, the consequences can be dire for all concerned. Secondly, it was, for the most part, a creative success. And, finally, as already mentioned, it is, unquestionably, a classic of the genre and, as such, it is now historically important.<br /><br />Unfortunately, "Head" came too late in the Monkees career. But, there again, they would not have been allowed to make it earlier on because it was essentially a very pointed and cynical satire of their own image. <br /><br />Clearly, the members of the group knew, only too well, that the whole Monkees juggernaut had just about run its race when they started work on this project. In a way, it was to be their swan song and they were determined to let it all hang out. They were tired of being treated like mere pawns in the high powered corporate game in which they had been manipulated and exploited over the preceding few years. In short, they "wanted out" and they were going to say a few things before they left.<br /><br />History, however, has vindicated the band. Let the critics be damned. The Monkees, left behind some of the best, most polished and successful pop records of the decade. Yes, they had plenty of help. But at the end of the day, THEY stood in front of the studio mikes, THEY fronted the movie and TV cameras and THEY did the concerts. They were fun and just a little bit crazy. But, unlike some of their contemporaries, they were never threatening. You could safely introduce a Monkey to your elderly aunt.<br /><br />"Head" probably borrows a bit too heavily from the Beatles "Hard Day's Night" but it's still worth another look for those who were around at the time or for younger retrophiles who have the ability to appreciate its significance.<br /><br />Enjoy!

I like British humor, I believe it's one of the best in the world. I like almost every British sitcom (okay... maybe not Monthy Python, some of the jokes were great, but some of them I didn't understand.), but this League of Gentlemen is just something good to make you sick. This show was good in some way; it helped me lost some weight because watching this piece of garbage make me feel I'm not hungry anymore. This is really just disgusting, sick and not even funny TV show and I wonder who is actually laughing at this stuff. I watched it for about 10 minutes and turned it off. It was so disgusting, watching men dressed in the woman with yellow teeth and urinating on the car... I mean... what's so funny about that??? It makes me wanna puke. No humor, just disturbing images and cheap, toilet laughs... I don't know... if you like this stuff... you go ahead... watch it... but to be honest, people watching and enjoying this must have some emotional problems. Garbage.

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

No more corned beef and cabbage for her!<br /><br />This little romantic comedy clips along from scene to scene with a few exotic twists (some imaginary scenes and a costume party). All of this is centered around the wife of the husband(s) who is looking to break out of the doldrums, played by Gloria Swanson (she is twenty here!). Both the leading men have a natural air that is convincing and of course Swanson is perfect in all kinds of moods, from frivolous to worried to hopeful. <br /><br />Behind all the games and apparent lightheartedness is that old serious problem of staying in love and not straying in love. There's a little corniness, but director DeMille is on top of keeping it snappy and believable in all. As with many films from this period, the subtitles do not just tell what they are saying (or thinking) but often give a kind of philosophical insight, as if to justify the tragedy (or raciness). And there is that higher purpose here, probably better without the instructional text, but it's part of the narrative style, and it's kind of quaint. <br /><br />If you are looking for visual or formal amazement, you won't find it here. But as a story, well acted, and filmed with precision and economy, it's really a great example. The events might not come as a total surprise, but it's such a modern love story, set almost a hundred years ago, it's a gas. And did I saw Swanson was perfect?

This trashy B movie attempts to masquerade as a study of sexual addiction, but it is really a poor excuse for a sexploitation flick. The story revolves around Sammy Horn (subtle name) played by Michael Des Barres. Sammy is a restaurant owner with a clueless wife Grace (Rosanna Arquette) and a young child. He has a sexual addiction and must have meaningless sex every five minutes with any woman in his field of vision who will agree (and of course every woman on the planet finds him irresistible despite the fact that he looks old enough to be collecting Social Security).<br /><br />The story is centered on a conversation with his therapist (Nastassja Kinski) where he is describing each of his sexual exploits via flashback. This is nothing more than a convenient launching point for a parade of serial sex acts, which consumes at least 75% of the screen time.<br /><br />It is hard to know where to begin criticizing a film this bad. The production values are abysmal. The movie is shot on video with a look somewhere between a TV soap opera (at best) and an amateur porn flick shot in someone's garage. The direction by Joseph Brutsman is horrible with bad lighting, uninspired framing and poor actor direction. The script is vapid and the dialogue mindless and vulgar.<br /><br />Women are generally portrayed as sex obsessed nymphomaniacs just waiting for an addict like Sammy to come along and rough them up while feeding their insatiable appetites with some impersonal copulation. As an example, Grace's sister comes over to indignantly inform Sammy that she knows he's been sleeping around and that she is going to tell his wife. His response to that is to throw her up against the wall and begin raping her. About three seconds into it she has an epiphany and is instantly converted to one of his sex disciples begging him to give her more. Just as they finish Grace walks in and sis says to her, `Oh, great to see you, gotta run to pick up Timmy' and mum's the word about Sammy's indiscretions. The bond of loyalty has been sealed with a good ravishment. No spoiler here because it is so typical of the obvious nature of the film that anyone who had seen the first fifteen minutes could have predicted it.<br /><br />The sex depictions are all overdone, mechanical, and so poorly simulated that they are more comical than erotic. Most of them are done with both participants fully clothed. The acting is wretched. Michael Des Barres presents all the depth of a rain puddle. He really seems to get into the thrusting and profanity of the sex parts, but when it comes to actually acting with Arquette and Kinski, he is adrift. Rosanna Arquette is the closest thing to an actor in this film, giving a bearable performance and looking genuinely hurt when she finally discovers that her perfect husband is a lecherous animal. Nastassja Kinski is far too compassionate as the therapist, but at least we have some acting happening here. The rest of the cast is just a collection of elevated body doubles to whom they give thought provoking lines like `hit me harder, is that the best you can do?' and `Oh, God…YES'.<br /><br />This movie is among the worst I have ever seen, a dubious distinction given the thousands of films I have viewed. I have given it the extremely rare dishonor of rating it 1/10. Not to be seen within three hours of any meal.

A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of "Friday the 13th: the Series" where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A

This feels like a feature-lenght treatment of a comedy-routine that could have also been told in a ten-minute short. Also, technical credits are sup-par. The film really feels like a film school diploma project.<br /><br />The cast is a mix of seasoned stage pros and talented newcomers but the problems is the superficial scrip. Their lines feel constructed, exactly like cued TV show material.<br /><br />The director fails to take his protagonists seriously, therefore we are not touched by their problems and conflicts.<br /><br />The film has been cleverly marketed and offers a unique selling point, but in the end the film disappoints on all levels.

A 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).<br /><br />Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.<br /><br />Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'

Elegance and class are not always the first words that come to mind when folks (at least folks who might do such a thing) sit around and talk about film noir. <br /><br />Yet some of the best films of the genre, "Out of the Past," "The Killers," "In A Lonely Place," "Night and the City," manage a level of sleek sophistication that elevates them beyond a moody catch phrase and its connotations of foreboding shadows, fedoras, and femme-fatales. <br /><br />"Where the Sidewalk Ends," a fairly difficult to find film -- the only copy in perhaps the best stocked video store in Manhattan was a rough bootleg from the AMC cable channel -- belongs in a category with these classics.<br /><br />From the moment the black cloud of opening credits pass, a curtain is drawing around rogue loner detective Marc Dixon's crumbling world, and as the moments pass, it inches ever closer, threatening suffocation. <br /><br />Sure, he's that familiar "cop with a dark past", but Dana Andrews gives Dixon a bleak stare and troubled intensity that makes you as uncomfortable as he seems. And yeah, he's been smacking around suspects for too long, and the newly promoted chief (Karl Malden, in a typically robust and commanding outing) is warning him "for the last time." <br /><br />Yet Dixon hates these thugs too much to stop now. And boy didn't they had have it coming? <br /><br />"Hoods, dusters, mugs, gutter nickel-rats" he spits when that tough nut of a boss demotes him and rolls out all of the complaints the bureau has been receiving about Dixon's right hook. The advice is for him to cool off for his own good. But instead he takes matters into his own hands. <br /><br />And what a world of trouble he finds when he relies on his instincts, and falls back on a nature that may or may not have been passed down from a generation before. <br /><br />Right away he's in deep with the cops, the syndicate, his own partner. Dixon's questionable involvement in a murder "investigation" threatens his job, makes him wonder whether he is simply as base as those he has sworn to bring in. Like Bogart in "Lonely Place," can he "escape what he is?"<br /><br />When he has nowhere else to turn, he discovers that he has virtually doomed his unexpected relationship with a seraphic beauty (the marvelous Gene Tierney) who seems as if she can turn his barren bachelor's existence into something worth coming home to. <br /><br />The pacing of this superb film is taut and gripping. The group of writers that contributed to the production polished the script to a high gloss -- the dialogue is snappy without disintegrating into dated parody fodder, passionate without becoming melodramatic or sappy. <br /><br />And all of this top-notch direction and acting isn't too slick or buffed to loosen the film's emotional hold. Gene Tierney's angelic, soft-focus beauty is used to great effect. She shows herself to be an actress of considerable range, and her gentle, kind nature is as boundless here as is her psychosis in "Leave Her to Heaven." The scenes between Tierney and Andrews's Dixon grow more intense and touching the closer he seems to self-destruction. <br /><br />Near the end of his rope, cut, bruised, and exhausted Dixon summarizes his lot: "Innocent people can get into terrible jams, too,.." he says. "One false move and you're in over your head." <br /><br />Perhaps what makes this film so totally compelling is the sense that things could go wildly wrong for almost anyone -- especially for someone who is trying so hard to do right -- with one slight shift in the wind, one wrong decision or punch, or, most frighteningly, due to factors you have no control over. Noir has always reflected the darkest fears, brought them to the surface. "Where the Sidewalk Ends" does so in a realistic fashion. <br /><br />(One nit-pick of an aside: This otherwise sterling film has a glaringly poor dub of a blonde model that wouldn't seem out of place on Mystery Science Theater. How very odd.) <br /><br />But Noir fans -- heck, ANY movie fans -- who haven't seen this one are in for a terrific treat.

I liked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I plan to) I just may love it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does grow on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in enfolds is very natural and has a mood to it. You just get into it.<br /><br />I really liked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very touching as a whole. The characters have a strong element of realism and the movie very slowly and gently weaves a spell as you get involved in the various interactions between them all and want to know how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take. <br /><br />I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.<br /><br />One thing that I will say is I missed the ending which is driving me crazy and I HAVE to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that may not be for everybody but that I feel is strongly underrated(even some of my most film buff purist friends who have seen almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even seem to have much of a message board but I liked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a gem. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and recommend this little known flick.

I watched the world premiere of this on the Starz Action channel. They call it Vampires: The Turning. The plot was a little confusing. There is a voice-over in the introduction about an 800 year war, and I didn't quite understand. The movie is about a young couple somewhere in Asia (maybe in China, I don't think the movie specifies). The couple has an argument and Meredith Monroe runs off and is kidnapped by a biker gang of Vampires. The boyfriend finds a group of vampires that don't kill humans, and enters into a battle with the bikers. A human group of slayers somehow get involved, and the final fight sequence takes place during a solar eclipse. This movie is not related to either Vampires or Vampires: Los Muertos. Confusing, but decent action. Four out of 10 stars.

After some difficulty, Johnny Yuma arrives at his ailing uncle's ranch to take over day to day operations, only to find out that the old man has been murdered by his beautiful gold-digger wife and the woman's vicious brother.<br /><br />Good production values, a likable performance by Mark Damon, and a breezy action packed script combine to make this an entertaining, if not exceptionally deep, above average addition to the spaghetti western genre.<br /><br />Co-star Rosalba Neri is one of the hottest European babes ever to grace the screen. Here she's absolutely perfect as the cold-hearted user (and abuser) of weak men.<br /><br />Damon and Neri appeared together in at least one other picture, The Devil's Wedding Night, a pretty good horror movie that's of particular interest for those of you that want to see what's underneath Rosalba's dresses.

What a waste of a great cast. Figured I'd check it out because it looked like a good stoner comedy with a lot of fairly well-known actors. What it turned out to be was a pointless collection of boring intertwining stories about several characters with minimal connections with each other. Characters who start off looking like decent people but end up with not a single likable or interesting characteristic among them. Calling it a comedy was a stretch as well...the only thing that made me chuckle was Jack Black's song, which was basically Tenacious D. I waited for something big to happen but ended up with nothing more than 97 minutes of my life wasted.

When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.<br /><br />That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art.

Being American, I have not been exposed to this character before, which is good because some of you have been disappointed. I have nothing to compare it to. I have found no enjoyment in the mindless idiot humor in the American teen movies, and although this is a slightly similar type of humor, I couldn't stop laughing. I hardly ever laugh out loud at a movie. And usually a movie has a few funny parts for me, but this movie was funny from start to finish. My only disappointment was when it was over. I'm actually going to buy this on DVD when I find it.

"Radio Flyer" is one of my most loved American movies.<br /><br />The really great job of two boys, Joe Mazzello and Elija Wood, (in spite of terrible performance of T.Hanks at the beginning and ending...) with marvellous script of D.M.Evans and powerful and emotional directing of R.Donner plus Absolutely Incredibly Peerless Music Score of H.Zimmer allowed the "Radio Flyer" to win one of the first places in my family's rating of movies.<br /><br />It's so pity that that very good movie was underrating by some movie critics.<br /><br />I just can't help waiting to see it on DVD.

Oh dear. This sequel has a mirror, this time, which houses the evil spirit of a psychopath which murdered an entire family with a shotgun in the Amityville home. The mirror captured the entire ugly incident of the horrified family who had no time to prepare for their uninvited guest. The mirror is given to a photographer, Keyes(Ross Partridge)by a bum(..who just so happens to be his lunatic father, and the man responsible for killing the family)and it's evil soon terrorizes those in a loft(..such as Keyes' painter pal Suki, portrayed by Julia Nickson-Soul)where he lives when they look into it. Soon Keyes is having nightmares, looking through the eyes of his father as he guns down the family in cold blood, worried that he might follow in his footsteps. Soon he sees other occurrences through his father's eyes like that terrible day pops bashed his mother's head against the floor of an institution or experiencing a moment inside the cell as doctor's administered a drug to immobilize him.<br /><br />Pretty solid supporting cast who deserve better than being stuck in junk like this, such as David Naughton(American Werewolf in London)as the proprietor of the loft with which Keyes lives, Richard Roundtree as an eccentric sculptor/artist, Terry O'Quinn as a psychologist-detective, and especially Lin Shaye as a hilarious ditsy, rather strange secretary-nurse in the asylum(..the one which held Keyes' father) soon to be closed down.<br /><br />Rounding out the film, the sexy, leggy Lala Sloatman as Keyes' supportive girlfriend, Barbara Howard(Friday the 13th:The Final Chapter)as Naughton's betrayed wife(..he was on the verge of starting an affair with Nickman-Soul), Jack Orend as the sadistic fiend who attempts to provoke his son into killing innocent people as he did, and Robert Rusler(A Nightmare on Elm Street 2:Freddy's Revenge)as a rejected lover(..of Nickson-Soul)who meets an unfortunate demise while ripping apart paintings as a revenge for his dismissal.<br /><br />This film is a poor special effects movie merely using the Amityville title as a cash-in. The franchise has never been that great to begin with, but as each sequel was green-lit, it grew worse and worse. After the third film, furniture from the infamous house become "possessed" items tormenting folks. The cast try hard, though, but the material(..a mirror causing chaos and murder through supernatural means)is lacking in quality..and the rather mediocre special effects don't help matters. O'Quinn, as little as he has to work with, shows why he's such a great actor, he can even shine in excrement such as this. All's not lost, you get to see Sloatman always wearing super short skirts(..or her man's shirt in panties), showing off her legs throughout..hey, you have to find a silver lining somewhere. Believe it or not, AMITYVILLE:A NEW GENERATION was the seventh film in the franchise! Coolest part of the film were the portraits of demons painted by Nickson-Soul's artist, perhaps inspired by the evil mirror after looking into it.

Perhaps, we are too much attached to great spectacles when we hear of antiquity brought to screen. Perhaps, we expect too much from these films. However, if we, as viewers, are offered far too little, what happens then? <br /><br />That is what I thought after seeing IMPERIUM - NERONE by Paul Marcus, a part of the production series on the Roman Empire. AUGUSTUS by Roger Young, the first IMPERIUM movie, included at least Peter O'Toole but what does this movie include?<br /><br />Hardly anything accurate. The historical errors are so serious that the movie changes facts and constitutes rather a distorted image of the Roman Empire than the true history. Throughout the movie, we see Nero young: young man during the allegedly long reign of Caligula, young man during the reign of Claudius and finally during his own (historically 14 year long) reign. And...he dies the same. According to the movie, Nero, born during the reign of Tiberius, lives for more than 40 years but looks to be in his late twenties when he dies... Continuity combined with made up history is the biggest problem of the movie, which makes it hardly logical, not to say reliable. Nero loses his father, is raised by slaves. At that time, his mother, Agrippina, is exiled by Caligula. Later, however, she suddenly marries emperor Claudius who already has big children with freshly married to him Messalina. At these moments of the movie, we see Acte (Rike Schmid), Nero's mistress. All right, it is historically "accurate"; yet, no source proves that she played such a decisive role in the rise of Christianity in Rome. In the film, she is not only a devoted Christian but even a witness of St Paul's miracle (he brings a young girl Marzia back to life). Besides, there was, historically, nothing like Nero seen on the court of Caligula since Nero was born in Caligula's 4 year long reign (A.D. 37-41). I understand that movies may change something but such an error makes the script absolutely unreliable! And many, many other shortcomings concerning content that are hard to enumerate but after 30 minutes of watching this film, I doubted whether I was watching a historical movie or a total fantasy.<br /><br />As for its artistic features which supply us with entertainment, they are equally lame as the history here is. The performances are artificial, the cast simply have beautiful faces but weak acting abilities. Perhaps, I am too much attached to Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton in the lead, but Hans Matheson does not fit as Nero at all. He could have some of the good moments as an actor but never as the infamous Roman emperor. Is he an artist who burns Rome for a song? Is he a cynic who disguises the love to his relatives? Is he a cruel ruler who sacrifices the lives of thousands of innocent people for the sake of "alleged justice"? None of these. He is just a young man who does not know how to rule and, in the long run, begins to release the fire burning within himself... John Simm is out of place in this film as Caligula and absolutely inferior to other portrayals of the character. Elisa Tovati is only sexy as Poppaea; yet she could have been much much better. The costumes are inaccurate and the sets do not amaze. Low budget results in low effects and, consequently, low entertainment.<br /><br />But what made me most angry in this movie and, as a result, I give it 1/10 are some moments that are absolutely unacceptable:<br /><br />- the death of Poppaea and St Paul's talk with Nero at her dead body, <br /><br />- Claudius' mention of the current conquest of Britannia on the feast and soon his death (he conquered Britannia while Messalina was his wife much before his death), <br /><br />- Tigellinus killing Agrippina (Laura Morante), Nero's mother, <br /><br />- Nero's arguments in the speech to the senators, <br /><br />- finally, Nero's death - a calm day at the lake and an indifferent suicide that leads to a moral said by Acte "Let us forgive him"<br /><br />All in all, this film is a waste of time and is absolutely unneeded as yet another production concerning the Roman Empire. It's better to make one good film in 30 years than ten minor little ones in 5 years. 1/10 - should not have been made at all.

I was browsing through the movies on demand and saw Underdog for free and it was only 82 minutes long so I decided to watch it. I wasn't expecting much but it exceeded my expectations of being awful. Everything about the movie was cringe worthy. The dialogue was atrocious including many terrible puns. The jokes were also terrible. I found myself yelling and flipping off my television screen while I was suffering through this trash. It hit its target audience very well but I don't see how anyone else could enjoy this film. It made me very angry and nearly cry because of everything terrible this film had going for it.<br /><br />The only enjoyable thing about this movie was being able to give it a 1/10 after viewing it. I beg you to avoid it at all costs. I understand the fact that its made for kids but there is nothing likable about it at all.

This film is an absolute classic for camp. That is why it was an Elvira and MST3000 classic. Everyone knows the story. Scientist keeps his girlfriend's head alive in a lasagna pan in his basement while he cruises town and tries to find her a body by checking out the local chicks. Finally he finds a real hourglass body with a scar-faced chick's head on top. The severed head makes friends with the failed experiment in the closet and the conehead comes out of the closet and rips off the assistant's remaining "good" arm (his other is not right from a scientist's earlier failure), and the whole place burns down.<br /><br />The movie scared us so much as kids that my friend wouldn't go into his basement for a year after seeing it. As kids we ranked the scariest movies of all time and this one was number four. Only one of those scary movies was really any good (the Original "The Haunting".)<br /><br />I had to give this movie a seven rating for the tremendous amount of entertainment value it offers. Its eerie effect because of the crappy production and the weird sexual angle when the scientist looks for the bodies (complete with porno sound track) scares the hell out of innocent children, while the ridiculous aspects make it prime material for watching talking and laughing. I could watch this film tonight and enjoy it while I'd rather go to the Dentist than watch "Chicago" again.<br /><br />Seven is the most I can give it, because its entertainment value is mere luck. The film , as cinema, is a disaster.

I absolutely like this film a lot. It is not very entertaining, but it's a feast of bizarre and stunning images! There's no dialog ,only some background sounds and noises. If you are into something completely different and original, and enjoy the obscure and bizarre...then you might like this work of art. Ik looks like a film made with the very first camera ever made ,in a time where strange human-like beings live and perform their bizarre habits. God has killed himself with a razor and gave birth to Mother earth. Mother earth impregnated herself with God's semen after an act of fellatio, and gives birth to a son "Flesh on Bone". What follows are inhuman acts of ritualistic torture, rape and murder for purposes we do not know....or do we?

This movie is a quite fair adaptation of the Prosper Merimeé's novel. In the novel Merimeé himself is a character, Don José is from Navarra (North Spain, and historically a Basque Country zone, they can speak Basque language). They are in Seville (Andalusia, South Spain) and they only speak Spanish with Andalusian accent, in no way they speak Basque, but Carmen explains to Don José that she was living in Navarra. You can believe it or not, anyway this is the book's version, then you can't be critical with the movie about this, be with the book! You have to note are different the novel by Merimeé and the opera by Bizet, and this movie is an adaptation from the novel, anyway in the opera Don José is still Spanish from Navarra, never he's French. Why so many people keep thinking Don José is French? I don't know but I guess because the novel and the opera are in French although is supposed to be in Spanish.<br /><br />The only important difference between the movie and the novel is that in the movie Don José also kills the "torero" lover of Carmen and in the novel he doesn't (neither in the opera). I guess they wanted to keep the movie a little more gore! I think the movie is quite good, anyway.

one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine!

I'm not the type of person to watch T.V. shows because the acting normally sucks or it's unrealistic or TOO dramatic! But this show is perfect. Everyone can act, and you can relate to the characters and their situations. Everyone has their own personality and Lorelai Gilmore is the best for her sarcastic comments that can make any bad situation seem a little funny. Rory Gilmore is a good role model for all girls. She takes pride in wanting to attend Harvard and boys/boyfriends always come second in her book. She's a loyal friend and always the peace maker. There's subtle romance which is what I like, personally. Not the mushy gushy romance that not many people get to have in their lives, but a realistic type of romance. Every character eventually gets it, and they don't find their prince charming at first glance and they don't just "fall in love" with every guy that comes their way. It's a realistic show but when you watch it, you better brush up on your movies, pop culture, and random facts because Lorelai Gilmore is always making references. I fell in love with this show and if you give it a chance, so will you.

I watched this mini in the early eighties. Sam Waterson proved himself to be a great actor. In fact when he began Law and Order I was disappointed in him as it was not as powerful a role. Unfortunately the good roles do not pay the bills. I wish I could find a copy of this rare series and review it. It is both factual and entertaining. Everyone should see it to know what really happened. I was so moved I purchased and read the book "Pppenheimer-Shatterer of Worlds". And saw how this man became an unlikely hero who was never rewarded for his insight. If you get a chance be sure to watch this movie and see what a performance Mr. Waterston can really provide an audience. Enjoy the movies!

In the unlikely case that some aspiring directors are reading these comments, I'd like to offer some advice (free of charge!), from a viewer's perspective. If you want to make a serious exotic adventure film, do it. If you want to make a spoof of exotic adventure films, go ahead. DO NOT try to make both at the same time, it doesn't work. For example, having a goofy "comic relief" character killed and beheaded and following it up with a monkey shaking a tree and dropping a coconut on a cannibal's head just makes you look like you had NO IDEA what kind of movie you wanted to make. This one is boring, meandering, cheap, racist....you get the picture. A couple of smart moments and a few glimpses of nudity from Kathy Shower (way too prissy here) are hardly worth your trouble. There is a reason everyone has forgotten about this film's existence. (*1/2)

Caution: May contain spoilers...<br /><br />I've seen this movie 3 times & I've liked it every time. Upon seeing it again, I'm always reminded of how good it is. An HBO TV movie- very well done like most of their movies are- this would've gotten Oscars for it's performances had it been released for general distribution instead of made for TV.<br /><br />As I'm sure anyone knows from reading other reviews here, this is the story of serial murderer, Andrei Chikatilo. He murdered 56 people over 8 years in the former Soviet Union. (3 victims were buried & couldn't be found so he was only convicted of 52 out of 53 of his murders.) The story actually focuses more on the forensic analyst, Victor Burakov played to perfection by Stephen Rea. A man that becomes tortured and obsessed with finding this killer despite the additional obstacles placed by party hacks, his part is essential to be sure. There is a very touching scene towards the end of the movie that mentions how in America, investigators are routinely taken off serial killer cases after 18 months whether they want to or not due to the mental strain & frustration. According to this acct, Burakov worked for over 5 years before getting his first break from it. He followed the case to its conclusion, 3 years later. In this scene, his superior, General Fetisov, played by Donald Sutherland, actually tells him he admires his dedication and apologizes for not knowing he should've given him a break sooner.<br /><br />Rea's performance is so well done, he doesn't overact, chew up the scenery or do anything that distracts from his portrayal of a man who is hell bent on finding his killer. He is a man with passion, but doesn't show it in the same manner as is so usually portrayed in detective movies. He only occasionally gives outbursts after quietly putting up with more than most could stand under such circumstances. Rea does so much with his face, his eyes, he doesn't need to overact. He just *is* - His character, so frustrated after so long, at one point, driven to frustration, he actually says he'd rather find 3 at one time than none in a year. Of course what he means is not that he wants more people to die, he just wants some clues to catch this man. Rea makes us feel for this man. He makes us understand but a glimpse of what it is to live with such horror and futility.<br /><br />A mutant to be sure, Chikatilo's childhood was one which produces such "monsters." The character of Chikatilo is very well done by Jeffrey DeMunn. He somehow (impossible though it may seem) elicits some modicum of sympathy for himself. Perhaps he is the worst of us gone terribly wrong? Either way, his performance is very well done.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Colonel Fetisov (later promoted to General) also does a great job. He starts out seeming to be a cynical worldly official that doesn't seem much more interested in helping the investigation than anyone else blocking Burakov. But he eventually becomes more than just an assistant, he actually actively participates in helping Burakov. There is also a very nice turn by Max Von Sydow as the psychiatrist brought in to help profile and figure out what kind of deviant they are looking for.<br /><br />Although this movie deals with a morbid, grotesque and violent story, it really is more about what it takes to catch a killer than the killer himself. All around a very well done movie with fine performances and a great screenplay. The screenplay manages to do what the best of this type of movie does: give factual events & place them meaningfully inside a dramatic framework that makes you feel like you know the people *behind* the facts.<br /><br />9 out of 10 stars

This was amongst the worst films I have ever encountered. The cinematography was dull, with long tedious shots (like a camera on a tripod filming a stage play) interspersed with "dramatic" angles that made little sense to the content on screen. The editing was terrible, scenes matched together with the delicacy of a butcher. The plot hinged on the viewer being familiar with the historical night in which Mary Shelley wrote frankenstien. The acting was forced, with the type of character development that left you with an intense interest in seeing each of them die horribly (the sooner the better).

I'll be honest with yall, I was a junior in high school when this sitcom first aired on ABC I didn't think I would like it at all. But with John Ritter in it i felt that it had a little potential in it, plus their was something else with it I liked. The acting was great, not a lot of horrible 2nd rated comedy lines, John Ritter always brings his A game when it comes to comedy . This was a great show to watch, and I'll tell you why it was a great show. My father who never watches sitcoms at all, he just watches movies, sports, and law & order, he actually sat down with my 3 brothers and 2 sisters, my mother, and myself, and watched the show I think because John Ritter was in it. I honestly think this show would still be running if John Ritter God rest his soul i wish he hadn't passed away.

WOW! <br /><br />This film is the best living testament, I think, of what happened on 9-11-01 in NYC, compared to anything shown by the major media outlets.<br /><br />Those outlets can only show you what happened on the outside. This film shows you what happened on the INSIDE. <br /><br />It begins with a focus on a rookie New York fireman, waiting for weeks for the first big fire that he will be called to fight. The subject matter turns abruptly with the ONLY EXISTING FOOTAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE TO HIT THE TOWERS. You are then given a front-row seat as firefighters rush to the scene, into the lobby of Tower One. <br /><br />In the minutes that precede the crash of the second plane, and Tower Two's subsequent fall, you see firemen reacting to the unsettling sound of people landing above the lobby. It is a sight you will not soon forget.<br /><br />Heart-rending, tear-jerking, and very compelling from the first minute to the last, "9/11" deserves to go down in history as one of the best documentary films ever made.<br /><br />We must never forget.<br /><br />

I have always been a great admirer of Nicolas Roeg and "Walkabout" is one of my favorite films. This is a film version of Roegs stage play and while most of the film takes place in a hotel room it still has some of Roegs cinematic flare. Very unique story is about a famous actress (Theresa Russell) who after a hard nights work on a film in 1954 goes to a hotel to visit a famous professor (Michael Emil) and together in his hotel room they talk. After awhile she wants to go to bed with him but as they start to get undressed her husband is banging on the door. Her husband is a famous ex-baseball player (Gary Busey) and he wants to know what is going on. The three of them in the hotel room talk about what is going on and what the future holds for them. Meanwhile, a famous senator (Tony Curtis) is threatening to take away the professors papers if he doesn't testify at a hearing. Theresa Russell is just excellent and while she's not trying exactly to impersonate Marilyn Monroe she does a wonderful job of exuding the phobia's and nuances that Monroe is very well known for. One thing the film does is show her as not only a woman on the verge of a mental breakdown but show her as a physical wreck as well. She talks of being unable to have children and at one point in the film she suffers a miscarriage. You can make an excellent case that this is Russell's best performance and I probably wouldn't argue. The film does an interesting thing in showing many flashbacks as the characters continue to talk about one thing and in the flashback we see one of many reasons for their actions. Busey also gives a good solid performance and it reminds me of what a strong persona he gives off on screen. Emil as the professor is a character that has many more things on his mind then we originally thought. The last scene in this film is a demonstration of his darker side! One of the highlights of the film for me is the little conversation he has with the elevator man (Will Sampson of "Cuckoo's Nest") and they discuss what Cherokee Indians think about at all times. But of course the famous scene in this film is where Russell demonstrates to Emil how she does understand the theory of relativity and uses toys to show this. The professor is delighted by her demonstration and so are we! Russell and Roeg are married in real life and they do admirable work when they are in collaboration and this is probably their best film together. Good performances and a very interesting job of directing make this a challenging and visually thought provoking film.

A Chicago couple, Dillon and Dougherty, are falsely accused of killing their daughter. People begin to wonder if they did it. The police investigate and find suspicious evidence. The couple are maligned by the public and accused in the press. The cops speculate that they are Satanists and have ritually murdered their own daughter. They are charged and brought to trial. They are represented by publicity-seeking lawyers who give them bad advice and bill them for $100,000. The evidence presented against them is twisted or hidden by the police. Fabricated intimations of sexual abuse are presented. Their other child is taken away from them and put in a foster home. Dougherty is pregnant and gives birth to find her baby removed. Verdict, she didn't do it but he did. He goes to the slams with a sentence of 45 years.<br /><br />In the last third of the movie, with Dillon in jail and Dougherty wondering what to do next, we see people who have been antagonistic now slowly coming to the couple's defense. Witnesses admit to having lied. Other facts are brought to light that, finally, result in Dillon's release. The killer is never found, though the movie gives us a thorough whacko as a plausible perp.<br /><br />This is a weeper from beginning to end. Nothing seems to go right for the couple. Oh, there are a few happy moment, maybe a party where everyone is glad to be together and tearing up with joy, or some point of evidence in their favor is discovered and people hug one another. But it's never long before someone rushes through the door with more bad news and all the faces are frozen in tragic disbelief. (Usually a fade to block follows.) There isn't necessarily anything wrong with moving tragedies, although I can't imagine what pleasure we get out of seeing people suffer. There's plenty of tragedy in Shakespeare too. I suppose whatever we find interesting about tragic stories lies in the way they're told. "Oh, but I am Fortune's fool!" Romeo cries after killing Juliet's brother. Here we have Dougherty running in her robe through a hospital corridor, screaming, "Where's my baby???" There isn't any ambiguity or irony in the story -- as I'm sure there must have been in the real life events on which it's based. People are either good or bad here. Or else they're bad, then they turn good.<br /><br />The film isn't aimed at exploring human quirkiness, or the way things work out. It's aimed at wrenching tears from the audience. The actors provide first-rate role models. I can't remember the last movie in which I saw so many tears. There are rivulets of tears. Showers of them. Cascades of them. A veritable Niagara of them. A Lake Lacrymose of them.<br /><br />Well, I'll give one example of the efficiency with which the movie is crafted. Dillon and Dougherty hire a Chicago cop who works on the side as a private investigator (Ed Asner). Asner is sympathetic to them but he doesn't really accomplish much. He seems to be in the movie not because of his importance to the case but because he can provide the victimized couple with a kind of philosophy -- "Learn to live with it," which is okay -- and because he suffers from colorectal cancer, so we can watch him take his medicine, double over with pain, and finally pass away.<br /><br />What's frustrating about the movie is that in focusing so intensely on the suffering of the couple, it sidesteps one of the more important issues that it raises -- the function of gossip in regulating private lives.<br /><br />Gossip is a strange thing really. If we call it "gossip" it's bad, but if we call it "public opinion" it sounds acceptable, at the very least. Of course we all have convictions about issues that may or may not be justified. (As I write, Michael Jackson is once again being brought to court accused of molesting a young boy, and I wonder how many of us thrilled at the news and immediately assumed he was a pedophile.) But gossip isn't all bad either. It's like water. When it's properly controlled it's a community asset. We need gossip to keep each other in line. It helps us to maintain public order. But, like water in a flood or a tsunami, it is ruinous to a village when it rages out of control.<br /><br />This is a movie that's okay if you're not looking for too much in the way of insight into human nature. It's done so cleverly that, given its goal, it's hard to argue with it.

Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.<br /><br />It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.<br /><br />The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.<br /><br />Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.<br /><br />Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in "The Lady Vanishes." She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.<br /><br />George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.<br /><br />It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable.

Code 46 is one of those scifi movies where the government controls who you are allowed to love, and in fact will punish you if you try to procreate with the wrong person. The haves and the have-nots live in completely separate territories, the powers that be can remove your memories, etc. We've seen this stuff before, but that's OK- no movie is 100% original. This kind of premise is always fun to contemplate. Unfortunately, just imagining such a future is more interesting than actually watching Code 46. The characters are boring and rarely say anything interesting. Maybe that's commentary on a dehumanized future, but it's still dull to watch. It's sloooow.<br /><br />At times the imagery is nice, but usually (coupled with its "evocative" soundtrack) just looks like a glorified perfume commercial. Code 46 also sometimes uses the kind of television camera-work that I find annoying. You know, two characters talk as the camera artlessly "floats" on one side. Two seconds later it's floating on the other side of them in a vain attempt to keep your attention.<br /><br />My friends liked this movie. If they tried to get me to watch it again, I probably would not do so unless they agreed to pay me $50.

The Ali G character works brilliantly within the confines of a comedy show, but as a movie, it doesn't work in the same way.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong - this is a very funny movie, full of biting, witty dialogue, that caricatures the modern British chav wonderfully well, whilst providing the viewer with a hilarious, if unrealistic story.<br /><br />One problem with this film is that the script and content is either fantastically brilliant, or it's embarrassing to watch. When I say embarrassing, I don't mean funny embarrassing a la Office or Extras, but rather, you'll wish they hadn't included it in the final cut. One example of this is the inclusion of a music video after the film has ended, to the tune of, "This is how we do it." Whenever I watch the film, I stop the DVD when it says the end, and leave it at that.<br /><br />Overall, Ali G Indahouse is a good film, worth watching a couple of times. The script is enjoyable to an extent, and there are no issues as far as acting goes. However, refinement is the key word here.<br /><br />Ali G is a better television programme. Borat is a better film.

Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.<br /><br />Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.<br /><br />I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-

I had no idea what this film was about or even knew that it existed until about 1 month ago when I stumbled upon when I was searching for other films that stared Dominic Monaghan. I thought this film was a strange insight into the mind of a none sleeper and what his/her mind may be going through in the hours that they spend awake when the rest of the world around them is asleep,it was an interesting film and a good part was played by Dom.......I believe that even though this film you cannot buy anywhere (well I've never seen it anywhere) you must see it if you ever get the chance because it will really make you think about those people around us that cannot sleep and have to suffer night after night of not been able to sleep or only get about 1 hour of sleep every night so overall it was an interesting film of good substance.

I am rating this an 8 because of the premise of the film. The acting was fine, there wasn't anyone that stood out as amazing or appalling. It is disturbingly true that intelligent people are having less and less children, or choose to have none at all...whereas dumb ass "W in '04" supporters are procreating like rabbits. And, though I don't believe the earth will actually exist in 500 years, I can see Mike Judge's parodied prophet coming to be, as life imitating art. The world is being run by idiots, and it will get worse as the intelligent free-thinking people become the minority and the "git 'er done" fans outnumber them. The proof is our farce of an election.<br /><br />But I digress. If you are fortunate enough to have this playing in your city, go see it. I have paid my $7.50 plus popcorn to see FAR WORSE rubbish than this (Date Movie or Napoleon Dynamite anyone?). There are laughs, there are cringes, but overall this is entertaining. If you have half a brain, you will think to yourself how this movie, though funny, is spot on (accurate) and a *tiny* bit uncanny. I'm not surprised AT ALL that this movie is almost completely unknown, as Fox was the one distributing this, and they wouldn't want any of their sheep to see this and think "maybe I WILL read a book, and not watch 'Next', or 'Cheaters', or 'Ow my balls'." If our society doesn't stop the dumbing down of everything,and the bastardisation of the English language (ahem, Mr. Bush), then this really is where we are going.