Datasets:

abhi227070

/

imdb-dataset

like 0

This movie is at times a wild 80s college sex comedy, others a sweet romantic one... Then it has moments of serious drama and then sprinkles in dashes of science fiction... It is so uneven its almost ridiculous.<br /><br />But I would hardly rank it as one of the worst films I've ever seen except of course for the fact that they casted Peter O'Toole.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing for him to work with here. Poor dialog, poor performances to work off of, poor everything... And yet he's fantastic... There is not one good thing about his part and yet he makes it work if only on pure charm alone.<br /><br />The fact that he was so able to achieve so much with so little shines a spotlight on how greatly everyone else in this film failed, making it seem even worse than I suppose it actually is...<br /><br />If any other actor was in O'Toole's role, I would have forgotten this movie as crap and never thought of it again, but a fine performance by Peter O'Toole despite all odds ensures that I'll remember this film for a long time to come... If only as a film that, maybe, could have been good if anyone involved in it was nearly half as good as Peter O'Toole.

Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down.

The film had it moments, but was disappointing in my eyes anyway. It was a reworking of Trespass (Walter Hill) and so The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, with less tension, bite and human emotion. There was some nice acting but the story was limp and lacked any real depth. I watched the movie for Mr Reno and Mr Fishburn, neither were inspired and both had little to say or act out of their skin for. This movie has been done to death in the past and did not have to be made, eats up money which could be used on better movies. For an action movie it was sparse of action and as a thriller did not thrill. Better than watching snow fall, but not for me.

"Carriers" follows the exploits of two guys and two gals in a stolen Mercedes with the words road warrior on the hood hightailing it down the highway for the beach with surfboards strapped to the top of their car. Brian (Chris Pine of "Star Trek") is driving and his girlfriend Bobby (Piper Perabo of "Coyote Ugly")has shotgun, while Brian's younger brother, Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci of "Fanboys") and his friend--not exactly girlfriend--Kate (Emily VanCamp of "The Ring 2") occupy the backseat. This quartet of twentysomething characters are living in a nightmare. Apparently, a viral pandemic--which co-directors & co-scenarists Alex Pastor and David Pastor tell us absolutely nothing about--has devastated America. Naturally, the lack of exposition shaves off at least fifteen minutes that would have slowed down this cynical melodrama about how humans degenerate in a crisis and become their own worst enemies.<br /><br />This lethal virus gives you the shingles and then you bleed and die. Most everybody runs around wearing those white masks strapped to their nose and mouth by a thin rubber band. Initially, this foursome encounters a desperate father, Frank (Christopher Meloni of "Runaway Bride"),and his cute little daughter Jodie (Kiernan Shipka of "Land of the Lost") blocking the highway with their SUV. Brian swerves around Frank when he tries to waylay them, but in the process, the oil pan in their Mercedes ruptures and they wind up on foot. Reluctantly, they hitch a ride with Frank after they seal Jodie up in the rear of the SUV. She wears a mask over her nose and mouth and it is speckled with blood. Frank has heard that doctors are curing ailing people at a hospital and they head to it. Sadly, somebody has lied to Frank. The hospital physician is giving the last couple of kids some Kool-Aid that will put them out of their misery. The cure did not improve their condition. Everybody else in town is dead. Kate tries without success to get a dial tone on every phone. Frank realizes that there is no hope for his daughter and he lets the heroic quartet appropriate his SUV and take off.<br /><br />Indeed, "Carriers" qualifies as a relentlessly depressing movie about the effects of a pandemic on four sympathetic people who degenerate into homicidal murderers to protect themselves. They reach a country club and frolic around on a golf course until another four show up in suits and masks with pump-action shotguns. Incredibly, our protagonists manage to escape without getting shot, but Brian has a scare when he almost falls into the water with a floating corpse. Eventually, they discover that one of them has become infected. Later, as they are about to run out of gas, Brian blocks the highway like Frank did at the outset. Danny tries to stop a pair of older Christian women driving the car. Danny lies that his pregnant wife is about to give birth and he needs their help. Brian throws caution to the wind and blasts away at the ladies with his automatic pistol when they refuse to help them. Brian catches a slug in the leg from the passenger, but he kills her. <br /><br />No,"Carriers" is not a beer & pizza movie that you can either laugh off or laugh with because the humor is virtually non-existent. By the end of this 84-minute movie, our heroes have turned into villains who only care only for themselves and their plight. Chris Pine makes quite an impression as fun-loving Brian and his energetic performance is the only reason to hang with this hokum, while the only other well-known actress, Piper Perabo, is relegated to an inconsequential girlfriend role. As Bobby, she makes tragic the mistake of showing compassion to a dying little girl and pays an awful price. It is a testament to Pine's performance that he can change his character to the point of putting himself before others. Essentially, Pine has the only role that gives him the ability to pull a one-eighty from happy-go-lucky guy to heartless guy. <br /><br />The two directors are Spanish brothers, and they never let the momentum flag. Since there is no relief in sight, "Carriers" sinks into predictability. "Irréversible" cinematographer Benoît Debie does a fantastic job with his widescreen lensing and as unsavory as this road trip becomes, Debie makes it look like a dynamic film. Aside from the lack of a happy ending or closure in any sense of the word, "Carriers" suffers because it is so horribly cynical. The scene when the German shepherd attacks Danny conjures up the most suspense, but even it could have been improved. Unfortunately, the Pastor brothers do not scare up either much tension or suspense. By fade-out, you really don't care what happens to anybody.

As a convert into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I try to absorb as much as I can of my new religion's history. I was invited to attend a showing of this film with my sons & the other young men & women as well as their families of our ward. <br /><br />On a beautiful spring evening, we drove to Kirtland, Ohio to the church's historical village located there. We were to have had reservations at the Vistor's Center to view this movie. Since my movie viewing was limited to only a few church documentaries, I was intrigued. The only "full length motion pictures" of the church's I had seen was "Legacy" and "My Best Two Years", both which I thought were very well written and preformed.<br /><br />At the beginning, the missionary interpretor passed out tissues stating that several people had been deeply moved to the point of tears by this movie. I thought "OK...but it takes a lot to move me to tears." Imagine my surprise when I found myself sobbing! It truly is a very moving & inspirational testament to the Prophet Joseph Smith.<br /><br />See it & believe in it's powerful message!

Cinderella takes me back, when I was a little girl I loved the princesses of Disney. Cinderella was one of my favorites because I always was so enchanted by the story. Any child or family members will enjoy this wonderful and magical story.<br /><br />We have Cinderella who is a beautiful girl enslaved by her wicked step mother and ugly step sisters. She cleans and cooks for them without ever receiving thanks. The only friends she has in the world are the mice in the attic that are so charming and musical. When the ladies receive an invitation to the King's ball to find a lady for his son, the prince, a.k.a. Prince Charming, they all get excited, Cinderella overhears the exciting news and asks if she could come too. Her step mother makes a false promise and says if she does her chores and such, she can come too. Of course, she doesn't keep her promise and destroys a beautiful dress she and the mice made for the ball. Leaving poor Cinderella behind, a wonderful thing happens, Cinderella's fairy god mother appears and creates a beautiful dress and carriage out of things from around the house and even makes the mice and horses into elegant horses and a driver for the carriage. When the prince sees Cinderella at the ball, he has fallen hard for her. All the ladies are jealous, including her step mother and sisters. But Cinderella must return home at midnight when the spell is broken, all she leaves behind is her glass slipper. The next day the prince is on a hunt to find this girl who fits the slipper and is making a stop at Cinderella's house where her step mother has found out about her night and locks her in her room. <br /><br />Can she escape in time to tell the prince that it was her at the ball? You'll just have to find out. Trust me, this is a true Disney classic with beautiful animation and classic music that is so charming. You can't help but fall in love with this masterpiece. A dream is a wish your heart makes, this movie captures everything a girl could want.<br /><br />9/10

This film was rather a disappointment. After the very slow, very intense (and quite gory) beginning the film begins to lose it. Too much plot leaves too little time for explanation, and coming out of the theater I wondered what this was all about. The characters remain shallow, the story is not convincing at all, most of it is déja vù stuff without hints of parody, and there are some very cheesy parts... Like, the young cop has to do dig up a body. Of course it's night AND it rains AND he has to do it alone... yawn! Or The Manifestation of the Evil being "nazis" plus "genetic manipulation"... Wow, that's really original. There are some nice bits, though, like the fistfight scene, mountain views and some (running) gags, but (though Reno and Vincent Cassel do what they can) that's definitely not worth it. (3 out of 10)

I don't usually comment, but there are things that need to be said. Where to start...<br /><br />The acting, on Jeremy London's part was horrible! I didn't think he could be so bad. The plot could have been good, had it been well directed, along with a good solid performance from the lead actor. Unfortunately, this is one of those movies you read about and think it has great potential to be entertaining, but get disappointed from the start. <br /><br />Well, at least I got good laughs. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

After buying the DVD in a Bargain Bin due to the impressive amount of features listed on the cover, I popped it in the DVD player and everything looked good. Nice animated menus and a whole lot of extra features...but when I played the movie itself, what a let down. It is the worst thing I have ever seen and I have seen some bad movies in my time. The comment that praises the movie here at IMDB is actually from the people who made the film. So Don't Believe It unless you like to waste your cash!

I would have enjoyed this movie slightly more had not been for Jason (Herb) Evers constant harping on experiment. Many early reviewers of The Seven Samurai accused Toshiro Mifune of overacting. Yet, as more and more critics viewed that film they saw it as being purposefully done. Jason Evers is obviously not Toshiro Mifune, and his overacting is exactly that.<br /><br />Most of the actors in this B classic were rather good actors, minus Evers and the showgirls. If you watch this movie, you would have noticed Evers shouting almost every line, that is until he is smoking and blowing the smoke coolly out his nose. <br /><br />The special effects were par for the course in a B movie such as this one. In hindsight, there isn't much that stands out in my mind as fantastically good or bad for this movie.

My ratings: Acting - 3/10 Suspense - 2/10 Character Attachment - 1/10 Plot - 2/10 Character Development - 2/10 Overall - 2/10<br /><br />This show sucks very much officially. For me, CSI Miami is the best, CSI NY 2nd and CSI 100th. I don't know, in the other CSIs you get into the episode you're watching. But in this one, you just can't get into the episode, no matter how much you try, so in my opinion, this show is not worth watching. I know people have different opinions, and I respect that, but for me, this CSI ain't good enough. So if you like suspense, real acting/performance, good plot, direction, character development/attachment and you an overall good show, I suggest you to watch CSI Miami.

Bugsy Siegel was 31 when he went out to the West Coast. In addition to his dreams about Las Vegas, he toyed with the idea of acting. He was a good looking guy and about 7 years younger than his pal George Raft, so it wasn't such a crazy idea.<br /><br />Warren Beatty was 54 when he made this movie and despite the hair dye, he's too old for this part. Beatty was miscast; Bugsy should have been played by someone like Alec Baldwin. Bugsy was a tough guy feared by his contemporaries; Beatty just doesn't radiate menace.<br /><br />This was a vanity project for Beatty, who hasn't come to terms with the fact that he's no longer a leading man.<br /><br />The other big annoying miscast is Mantegna as George Raft. Raft had a distinctive voice and mannerisms, none of which Mantegna even attempts to match. You never once believe that Mantegna came from the streets.<br /><br />Warren Beatty and Robert Redford have both been pretending to be younger for years by massive use of hair dye, and now it;ll be a shock to suddenly go gray and play character parts.

As you can tell from the few comments posted here - mine may very well be the last you'll see, unless there is a big DVD-release or TCM plays it again ! - this is a kind-of "Our Gang" movie with a bunch of different kids. MGM certainly WAS the musical studio - if the musicians, dancers and singers weren't under contract, they were on tap. Heifetz was one of the most expensive.....that does it for a little charity work !!! The fee he received in that era was unheard of. Another musical film with Jose Iturbi (Mexican pianist) featured about 100 kids playing some simple tune on 100 pianos......so, those skeptics who think young children aren't musical are mistaken: I was one.<br /><br />As all write, "Frankie Smith" - good-ole American name - (Gene Reynolds) was the bad-but-good kid who is taken-in from the streets by the owners of a music-school. Can you believe that Walter Brennan ("Prof. Lawson") of all those western movies was the man running the school? Joel McCrea ("Peter McCarthy") and Andrea Leeds ("Ann Lawson") were the bigger stars in "They Shall Have Music", with a host of well-known extras (many of whom went-on to become stars in their own rights). As others have commented, almost all of the kids in the orchestra (actually, The Meremblum Symphony from Los Angeles) made big successes of their lives, either as musicians (for the studios) and other businesses.<br /><br />Sad to say, there aren't that many young-people's orchestras today - a sad mistake. Parents with children in school are usually so busy trying to keep their heads above water, and many don't even know what is happening to the kids in school. Musical instruction can get to be pricey, and almost EVERYONE would rather had a football-team.....<br /><br />This is the cheapest concert by Jascha Heifetz you'll ever hear is contained in this movie.....in those days, a quarter. His playing is brilliant, even if he looks like he'd rather be someplace else.....emotionless. By contract, any concert by Yo-Yo Ma is so joyful, it makes you want to run right out and buy a cello.....this guy is having a good time....like the kids in the "street" concert, when they hoodwink Heifetz to play at their school.<br /><br />All of the orchestral numbers were played by "the kids," and they make it sound easy. I love this type of movie - their plots are so simple, it doesn't take you two days to figure-out if you enjoyed - or understood - the movie, at all. We need some new movies like this - can't do anything but inspire younger kids to play other instruments than guitars.......Bravo!

A young solicitor in sent to a remote area to wrap up the estate of a recently deceased client. When he arrives he finds that he is made less than welcome by the local villagers and that his deceased client was not liked. To speed things up he decides to move from the local inn and take up residence in her home, a house that is usually fogbound and approached only by a causeway that is blocked off by the sea most of the day. Once there he sees visions of a woman in black, is she real or imaginary,he is also subjected to the blood curdling cries of a woamn and child apparently drowning in the marshes, these events take their toll on him and he soon becomes quite terrified. Atmospheric TV adaptation of a famous play by Susan Hill, that spends it first third building up its characters, before moving to the creepy country house, its poor colour contrast give away its TV roots immediately, this really should have been in black & white, but still as a ghost story it had a couple of unsettling moments, still though after waiting so long to see it I must say I was sadly just a little underwhelmed.

While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.

I watched this movie probably more than 20 times. The jokes are now 10-15 years old but every time I watch it it makes me fall off my chair. Two of the finest actor Salman Khan and Aamir Khan plays the lead roles here. Even if Aamir Khan is a much better actor and got the better role(smart guy) in the movie Salman Khan matches and sometimes perform even better as the dumb guy. All the characters are memorable. This movie is filled with hilarious one-liners and funny situations(a little too silly probably). Don't try to look for logic in this movie. Let your brain relax for some time. I promise it will be an experience to remember.

This hodge-podge adapted from a Gore Vidal novel (actually one of the great American writers) makes THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN and VALLEY OF THE DOLLS look like Fellini art-works. Raquel Welch, with an incredible body (and she's actually not very tall) in a lead role (except for KANSAS CITY BOMBER when she was quite good) playing Rex Reed's (bad movie reviewer; not critic) alter-ego, only to be surrounded by drag queen (great chick) Mae West, horny John Huston, a young and "naive" Farrah Fawcett (pre-Lee Majors; what a shame), and other various creep-azoids to pretend to spoof WAY too may things has nothing going for it except inter-spliced old films clips (i.e. Widmark in KISS OF DEATH, Lena Horne)...JUST so they can continue to bleed the life out of everyone.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10. Best performance = ?. It's so bad, it's worth seeing!

This film, an early William Wellman, has an important message, particularly today. It posits the notion that sometimes there are things more important than your own personal safty or well-being. The film, which has Walter Huston as the lead, is stolen by the performance of "Chic" Sales as Grampa. He's the most completely drawn character in the film and a joy to watch. You'll recognize some familiar faces if you watch many movies from the '20's and '30's. Wel worh your time to watch if you get the opportunity. Recommended.

This movie is a ripoff of James Cain's novel, THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Apparently, the director and producer never bothered to pay for rights to this story--perhaps the fact that we were in the middle of fighting the Italians in WWII might account for their forgetting to consider royalties! Despite this, the movie isn't really just an Italian version of the Hollywood movie. In some ways it's a lot better and in other ways, it is definitely not.<br /><br />The three central characters in this movie are really pretty ugly people. In fact, the male and female lovers are a bit icky-looking. The male lead is pretty ordinary except for his profuse body hair (particularly on the back and shoulders) and his lady love is, to put it frankly, unattractive. They are a very, very far cry from Lana Turner and John Garfield in the Hollywood version. And the ill-fated husband is really, really obese and loves to walk around shirtless--and his counterpart in the American film, Cecil Kellaway is definitely better looking (and probably better looking than the other two Italian leads, actually). And this unattractiveness is generally a reason I actually preferred the Italian film--since I just could NOT imagine a finely coiffed "dish" like Lana Turner in the middle of nowhere married to Kellaway--I am 100% sure she would have had dozens of better offers! Whereas, the Italian wife frankly might NOT have been able to do much better and this made the marriage actually believable.<br /><br />Part of the Italian film's believability comes from the blunt way it handles sex. The sanitized American film tries to make you believe that although Turner and Garfield kill Kellaway, they never actually get around to sex! This is pretty silly and totally unrealistic. In addition to the casual sexuality of the film, it's also pretty casual in showing the seamy side of life--with lots of sweaty people, a fly strip hanging over the kitchen table and everyone appeared to need a bath.<br /><br />The movie is also pretty fast-paced compared to the over-long American film. And what you get due to brevity isn't all good. The film lacks a lot of the style and polish of the American film--with grainier footage, relatively poor orchestration and sets. It sure ain't a pretty film, but the Neo-Realistic-like style makes the film seem more realistic. But it cannot make up for the short-cuts in the plot. Many of the plot elements in the later American version are either missing entirely or glossed over. And the ending seems a lot less interesting than the American film--and misses the entire human nature dilemma when Turner and Garfield turn on each other like rats (the best part of the American film).<br /><br />So which is the better film? Well, a lot of this probably depends on you. As for me, the Warner Brothers film was simply too polished and too unrealistic (though many like this style and may dislike watching films with subtitles)--but it packed a great ending. And the Italian film was much, much more realistic--until the crappy ending that seemed too rushed. So neither film is exactly great, but I'd give my nod to the Italian one being a bit better. It's too bad they couldn't have combined the best elements of both films into one exceptional film.

Demon Wind is about as much fun as breaking your legs. It is definitely an awful example of a film. So awful in fact that I don't even consider it a movie. I describe it more as a thing ... a monstrous thing. A thing that must be stopped at all costs. My friends and I first discovered this ... thing buried under a big box of video tapes at my friend's house. It was a late night and we had nothing better to do so we decided to watch some cheesy horror movies (we unfortunately picked this one.) Well, during the 90 minutes that this thing played we ended up laughing so hard that we almost threw up. The thing is literally pointless in every sense of the word. It's just a cheap, poorly done rip-off of Evil Dead. The whole "story" seems to be nothing more than some guy wanting to knock off his friends by inviting them to an abandoned house and letting demons rip them to pieces. I have a bet that the writers were actually writing the story while it was being filmed. I've seen bad horror movies before (Manos, Troll 2, HOBGOBLINS!!!) (shudder) I would have to say that Demon Wind could definitely contend with any and all of these films on terms of sheer stupidity. Watch it only if you enjoy laughing at stupid films.<br /><br />Fun fact: This film is like a cockroach on steroids! Much like the ouija board, every time we try to get rid of it, it always seems to mysteriously reappear. Kind of scary huh?

I rented this by mistake. I thought, after a cursory examination of the box, that this was a time-travel/sci-fi story. Instead, it's a "Christian" story, and I suppose is fairly typical example. If you are sold on the message you probably will overlook the awkwardness of the plot/acting/etc., but I found it rather painful. <br /><br />I have to admit that I'm bothered by the rewriting of history in this story. It paints the 1890's as some sort of paradise of family values and morality (a character is aghast that 5% of marriages end in divorce!), but it overlooks very unsavory sides of this "highly moral" society (rigid racial, sexual, and social discrimination were widespread, for instance). And at one point the hero complains to a clothing store owner about things that sound not all that different than the complaints of some Iranian leaders about women's clothing styles (as reported in a recent WSJ).<br /><br />Overall, thought, I suppose that it's the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing, and it's certainly wholesome...

Oh dear! What can I say about Half Past Dead? I was really disappointed in it. I was thinking....A Steven Seagal movie! Cool! We'll get to see him kick people and flip people and break bones. We might even get to see him have a stick fight with somebody! Excellent!<br /><br />However, I was in for a rude awakening. This film can be summed up as follows:<br /><br />Take an episode of the A-Team, remove the lovable and roguish characters such as Murdoch, Hannibal, Mr T and Face. Then get a writer/director to pen a plot even Ed Wood would be ashamed of and who's too big a fan of The Matrix and John Woo movies for his own good. Throw in a bunch of people with really bad acting ability and who don't have real names. Finally, add in a main star who's getting saggy around the midriff and doesn't appear to be able to do his own stunts anymore. <br /><br />The result? Half Past Dead. An action movie so ridiculous that it at least made me smile right the way through. The plot holes are stupendously, glaringly large - for example, prisoners who, when the jail is invaded, fight the invaders rather than attempting to escape. Or how about the prison itself, which has an armoury that contains heavy machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers? You also have a helicopter (bearing a striking resemblance to a Huey) with some kind of video game machinegun mounted in the nose.<br /><br />Then there's Seagal himself. I like the guy. He CAN fight. He's even witty in a way that Jean-Claude Van Damme will never be. But all through the movie I kept hoping for that one great, defining fight scene. Never happened. Instead we got people firing guns a lot and not hitting a whole Hell of a lot. I mean, when someone runs down a narrow corridor and you fire a sub-machinegun at them, there isn't a whole lot of places the bullets can go other than down the corridor and into the target. Yet somehow they miss? Even the A-Team would cringe at this foolishness. And then when it gets to any kind of one-on-one physical stuff, we get treated to a shabby Matrix rip-off, without the benefit of bullet-time. People getting kicked twenty feet through the air and sundry other ludicrous acrobatic nonsense.<br /><br />C'mon Steven, you're better than this. Your career can't be over. Say it ain't so!<br /><br />This is instantly forgettable (except I'm forcing myself to remember for the purposes of this review) and if you watch it, try to find it amusing in an A-Team kind of way. But I doubt it'll be high on anyone's "re-watchable" list. Out for Justice this ain't. More like Out to Lunch.

Looking for Quo Vadis at my local video store, I found this 1985 version that looked interesting. Wow! It was amazing! Very much a Ken Russell kind of film -quirky, stylized, very artistic, and of course "different." Nero was presented not so much as evil incarnate, but as a wacky, unfulfilled emperor who would rather have had a circus career. He probably wondered why on earth he was put in the position of "leading" an empire -it wasn't much fun, and fun is what he longed for. Klause Maria Bandaur had a tremendous time with this role and played it for all it was worth. Yes, Nero persecuted the Christians with a vengeance; one of many who did so. At one point one of his henchmen murmurs: "No one will ever understand we were simply protecting ourselves." He got that right.

From the epicenter of the cultural globe, four working class teenagers attempted to change the world through music and fashion. It was the final attempt to do so last century, and they failed. Before the dust had cleared, band manager and SEX shop proprietor Malcolm McLaren spent the money The Sex Pistols had earned to make a "mockumentary" about his own role in their success. The film was called The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle (take the hint) and consists of very little footage of The Sex Pistols actually playing music, and quite a lot of footage of McLaren effectively calling the audience idiots.<br /><br />Cod-surrealist nonsense in which guitarist Steve Jones is a detective on McLaren's tail, soon dissolves so he and drummer Paul Cook can jet off to Rio and spend time with "great train robber" Ronnie Biggs. Ready yourself for the spectacle of three very unappealing men dancing naked to a hideous irony-free version of "Belsen was a Gas" (a song about killing Jews for gold in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp), and another song sung in Ronnie's tone deaf whine which includes the lyrics "God save Myra Hindley, God save Ian Brady" (lyrics that Johnny Rotten would have considered distasteful). The Sid Vicious scenes are few and idiotic. Jumping out of bed in a thong with a swastika over the testicles to sing some bad boy biker song from the '50s. Playing into to the "Punk's a joke" theme of the movie, in an attempt to turn Sid into James Dean. I'm surprised McLaren doesn't take credit for Siddy's death too. The redeeming scenes are those of Sid in Paris and the infamous performance of My Way. The punk rock zeitgeist right there. Mocking an adoring audience before shooting them all. No need for an entire film, just watch that clip on YouTube.<br /><br />From Julien Temple's far superior (and more enjoyable) 2001 documentary followup, The Filth and the Fury, we were given a more balanced/honest view of what transpired in '78. But there were also a number of scenes that I would have liked to have seen in Swindle (as Fury was basically a reediting of the same material). One was an animated Sid complete with Sid's voice acting; "You f*cken betta wat'ch out, alright, or I'll slice you open" - a still of which appeared on the cover of the Something Else 7 inch - a snippet was shown in Fury, but I don't know what context that originally appeared. Was it in original prints, but removed after Sid's death? Was there more? Fury also shed light on the film Who Killed Bambi, which would have been the mock Hard Day's Night movie McLaren was originally intending to make. It starred Sting(!) as a member of a gay New Romantics group, and looked a damn sight more entertaining than Swindle.<br /><br />Sod Swindle, t'is a swindle. If you must, rent The Filth and The Fury and revel in music's failure as a world changing polemic.

This is on my TV right now... but only long enough for me to finish panning it in this comment. The previous comment let me know that this movie will not get any better, no matter how much I hope and pray. I will concur this movie is a colossal waste of my time, and would be of your time...it is not going to get any better! I can't believe this screenwriter is doing Atlas Shrugged! I hope he has improved a million-fold! I see some other credits on his resume that have had good reviews, but I'm still not convinced. If you are familiar with his work, please post something here, because I really want to see Atlas Shrugged, and would hate it if this guy turned it into the garbage that this movie turned out to be.

This movie was everything but boring. It deals with reality. To the people who think this movie was boring, open your eyes to the real problems in our society. Our children are dying. The consequences of alcohol and drug abuse are not to be ignored. I work in a correctional facility as a chemical dependency counselor,and i deal with these problems every day. People of all ages and all walks of life are effected by the consequences of their alcohol and drug abuse. It destroys families, hurts people and leads to serious brain damage,all kinds of health problems, and death. It is all preventable. This movie should be shown in every high-school in the world. If anyone owns this movie and wants to sell it, or sell me a copy, please e-mail me at: [email protected] thank you

All films made before 1912 really need to be viewed with a sense of time and place.<br /><br />In 1894, the Lumiere-family men [father: Antoine (1840-1911), sons: Auguste and Louis] owned and managed a factory that manufactured photographic plates and paper. Not a small enterprise; the factory had more than 200 employees who received pension and social security benefits - innovative for that time. It was located at Montplaisir in the suburbs of Lyon, France. What caused Louis Lumiere to become interested in building a Cinematagraph, in 1894, remains open for speculation. My suggestion is that the appearance of the Edison organization's Kinetoscope (peep-show machine), in Paris during the fall of 1894, provided the catalyst.<br /><br />W.K.L. Dickson, of Edison's staff, invented a motion-picture camera about the size of an upright piano that was patented in February 1893. It was electrically operated (using power from from heavy storage batteries. This massive machine pumped celluloid film strip (newly developed by the Eastman company) past a lens at about 40 frames-per-second (fps). It was ensconced, as an almost immovable object, in the "Black Maria" (essentially the first movie studio.) The Kinetescope machines showed staged presentations (less than one-minute long)that were filmed in this studio.<br /><br />During 1894, Louis Lumiere applied himself to the task of inventing a moving-picture camera. He had determined that, even at 16 fps on celluloid film, the persistence-of-vision of the human eye/brain would allow for normal motion to be perceived. His camera, dubbed the Cinematograph, was about the size of a large shoe box and was provided with a detachable film magazine that provided storage for enough film to make a shoot last about one minute when it was had cranked past the lens at 16 fps.<br /><br />The size and light weight, of the camera (it could be converted into a printer or a projector by the addition of a light source) made it portable enough that it could be taken to any location to record an event (provided there was enough sunlight available.) In the spring of 1895, Louis filmed: trick-riding by some cavalry men; a house on fire with firemen arriving and dousing the engulfed building with water; and a number of other scenes in and around Lyon. Using a Molteni bulb, he turned the camera into a projector and presented his films to scientists assembled in the reception room of the Revue Generales des Science. The images were projected on a screen five-meters distant from the lens. The screen was stretched in a doorway between two rooms. At a meeting of professional photographers, that same year, Louis photographed the arriving delegates and the same evening showed them motion pictures of their arrival.<br /><br />With accolades from both the scientific and photographic communities, Louis decided to have a public exhibition of his invention by the end of the year. Since each of his films would be about one-minute long, he would need at least a dozen films to make a good presentation. For one of these films he set up his camera at the entrance to his factory, photographing the egress of employees at quitting-time.<br /><br />The public venue chosen by Antoine - who offered himself as the "fairground barker" for the Cinematograph - was the Salon Indien of the Grand Cafe on the boulevard des Capucines in Paris. It was a wintry Saturday night on 28 December, 1895. As the first audience sat, they were presented with a projected view of the exterior of the Lumiere factory (with closed gates.) Some were chagrined that they were just going to see a routine slide show of Lumiere photographs. But then the crank on the camera/projector was turned and movement began. Louis had an innate sense for motion picture taking. This film has a beginning, a middle and an end. In the beginning, the doors are opened and people begin to leave their workplace; during the middle, the people stream out - with many trying to ignore the camera, and the cameraman, as they seem to be happy to leave a day of labor behind them. At the end, the gates to the factory are being closed.<br /><br />And this was the first film projected for the entertainment of the general public.

The summary is only for those who hate this movie, as finding the movie OK or average is acceptable. Visiting this movie on IMDb has made me nostalgic as I can't help myself going back in the year 1994. I was one of the few lucky ones who saw this movie in theaters. It instantly became one of my favourite comedies and took some years to make it my favourite. How can I say what made this movie my favourite? Was it the excellent writing ( story was OK but screenplay and dialogues were fabulous) Was it the superlative performances? Was it the mood of the film?<br /><br />After thinking about it for so many years I say it has to be a mixture. It is one of those movies which didn't have any flaws not even its music.(the other movie coming up in my mind right now is Sholay)<br /><br />PS: Rajkumar Santoshi please keep a balance between your drama and comedy movies. Only 1 comedy is not enough. I want moreeeeeeee..........

K-PAX is exactly what a heart warming film should be. The story is about a mysterious mental patient Prot, played by Kevin Spacey, and his unbelieving psychiatrist Dr. Powel, played by Jeff Bridges. The two have a very friendly bond, and as their relationship grows Dr. Powel can't help but wonder whether or not there is more to his mysterious patient, who insists he is from another planet called K-PAX. This film is very funny, and Kevin Spacey pulls of well placed one liners as if it was his second nature. K-PAX is a smart film, and I wasn't expecting it to go where it did. In the end, I found myself thinking about the small things in life, and the wonder and magic of the every day life we so often take for granted. I left the theater with a warm fuzzy feeling inside, and for families and couples on a date, K-PAX is a splendid film, that will not disappoint. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in something more than the monotonous releases of glossy, action packed, gore fests.

I have wanted to see this for the longest time, James Merendino is a great director. SLC Punk is one of my favorite movies, and in the first ten minutes of this film I thought that it was a great follow up after that though, it begins to drag. The acting and direction were terrific. In fact everything in the film seemed to flow except for the script. At times, the only thing keeping my attention was the fact that in the cast was the most beautiful woman in the world, Claire Forlani. This film was good, but I expected more.<br /><br />P.S. Look for great cameos by Chi McBride, and Chris McDonald.

I discovered "The Patriot" in a DVD-store and thought it could be a real action thriller. No, it´s instead a low budget movie with a ridiculous story. It´s no doubt a cable-movie and not one for the theatre. Fortunately after 90 minutes the movie stops otherwise the audience should have taken an anti-virus against sleep. One thing came over: it was the nice country the film has been shot. You can really feel the American air but that´s all. I hope for Steven Seagal that he finally succeeds in a big hit. It is not a must see because I and my wife voted average 4/10.

S.I.C.K. really stands for So Incredibly Crappy i Killed myself. There was absolutely no acting to speak of. The best part of the whole production was the art work on the cover of the box.The budgeting of this movie was sufficient. The filming was sub sesame street. The production looks like that of the underground filming for mob hits. The props used in this movie were stolen from a clothing store. The ending was so predictable you should fast forward to the last 5 minutes and laugh. If there is a book out there for this movie I'm sure it's better. I would avoid this at all costs. I did enjoy the intimate scenes they made the whole movie worth it. just kidding.

This is probably the only film I've seen where the IMDb reviews on both sides of the spectrum are 100% accurate. "The Stupids" is an atrocious, dim-witted film with absolutely no artistic merit whatsoever, and is a denigration to a director like John Landis. And that's what makes it great.<br /><br />In order to appreciate "The Stupids", you have to keep in mind a little-known, but very true maxim spoken by director Abo Kyrou: "I urge you to learn to look at bad films, they are so often sublime." In order for any film to work, the film must establish and follow it's own logic, and if it does so convincingly and sincerely, then it's actually possible for the film to work. For example, when you watch "Freddy Got Fingered" as a traditional gross-out comedy, it's complete and utter garbage; when you watch it with the understanding that it's actually a neo-surrealist comedy, it's brilliant.<br /><br />It works with good movies too. If "Jaws" hadn't accepted the reality it created, the air-tank explosion ending wouldn't have worked. But, a lot of people think "Jaws" is vastly overrated for this type of reason, and they aren't wrong. But it has it's strengths, doesn't it? The point being that a movie like this makes sense if you look at it with the right perspective. Some people, like me, get it right away, while others never will no matter how often it's explained. Jim Jarmusch made a compelling defense of "Showgirls" once, and even afterwards I still can't see it from his P.O.V. Doesn't mean he's wrong though. If you have the right frame of mind when you watch this movie (and NO I DO NOT MEAN STONED, I'm gonna put that to bed right now), you can actually enjoy the movie for the dumb, cheap, pointless slapstick late-80s/early-90s-style farce that it is.<br /><br />The defenders and haters of this film are right: It's STUPID, and that's the point. The movie accepts the stupidity of the characters much in the same way "The Jerk" accepted Navin Johnson's idiocy. And because it takes that and runs with it, the movie focuses exclusively on using that to forward the plot and to define the characters. A "bad" movie would actually do this and fail to use that logic properly; bad movie are bad because they make it up as they go along, whereas movies like "The Stupids" knows where it's going, what it's doing and why from the beginning.<br /><br />I can't defend the film from an artistic standpoint, which is why I give it such a low rating. The acting is mostly bad, the jokes very superficial, and the live-action quality probably ruins what would have worked as a cartoon. But I can't deny that it IS entertaining in its own way, and that's why I defend it. I got it right away, and I pity those who don't.<br /><br />I'll admit I was drawn to this movie because of Christopher Lee's delicious cameo appearance (hearing him say "Release the drive bee!" would have been worth the rental price even if I hated this film), but was amazed to find that, aside from the TV Studio Applause Sign segment with Jenny McCarthy, I was never bored, and never disappointed. In fact, many of the jokes, because of their cartoonish context, were hilarious (in particular the airbag-cigarette explosion). They were dumb, but they were funny. And the movie doesn't pretend to be anything else: a STUPID comedy about STUPID characters and instead of apologizing for it, it enjoys itself.<br /><br />And that's exactly why it works.

Without Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, this could easily have been a turkey. But they are brilliant. Ustinov is at his best, and for fans of Maggie, it is great to see her in her early days, matching Ustinov every step of the way for with and timing. For Englishmen in their fifties (and I am in that bracket), it is always entertaining to see glimpses of and hear sounds of the Swinging Sixties, and although this film spends a lot of time in offices, it has plenty of Sixties nostalgia, including red buses, Carnaby Street, a song by Lulu and a delicious shot up the micro-skirt of a waitress, the like of which England has never seen since in public places. As an I.T. engineer, I know that the computer hacking tricks are laughable, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. Nor are the wonderful stereotypes of Italians, French and Germans.

What ever happened to Michael Keaton? What a great actor and he proves it in this movie. This movie is actually FUNNY! And the reason why this movie is funny is for two reasons: an excellent script and Michael Keaton. This movie is one of the funniest comedies in the history of Hollywood. This movie is the ultimate spoof of gangster movies. In this movie, Hollywood actually pokes fun at itself by using the the gangster movie genre as the basis for a truly original comedy. The rest of the cast is funny too, especially the supporting cast. If you like to laugh and want to watch a movie that contains nonstop humor, then this movie is for you.

Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.<br /><br />Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.<br /><br />Terrific

It's one of the imponderables of low-budget independent film-making that so many with so little in the way of real talent fancy themselves frightmeisters. The paucity of talent evinced by these wonky wannabees is there for all the world to see. Case in point: FLIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (or, as I quickly came to know it, SHITE OF THE LIVING DEAD). There's nothing wrong with paying homage to one's heroes. I've done it many times over the years, myself, in many different ways. In fact, in the xlibris book THE NIGHT RIDERS, co-written with M. Kelley, I dedicate it, in part, to "the six writers whose work inspires me still: Richard Matheson, Harlan Ellison, Shirley Jackson, Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard." Had it been a motion picture, I would've dedicated it to the directors whose films have inspired me over the years. Very high up on that list would've been George Romero. It's nothing less than a crying shame that the makers of this film weren't truly as inspired by Romero as their title suggests.

OK, now at first i thought this was going to be another cheesy romantic comedy, which held back on the comedy but this wasn't. I mean how could it have been with the fabulous Amanda Bynes staring in it! She was amazing, really funny & is still stunning! The boys in it were also extremely fit, one major reason for going girls! The plot is strongly based upon the Shakespeare play 'Twelfth Night', as it was extremely similar, there was even a spider called malvolio, which belonged to the malvolio like character. The script was really well written and pulled together and it was very witty. The football skills in it were also amazing, it even made me think of playing football myself! Anyway, to sum it up this is a light hearted film about young romance, which gets very confusing! Go and see it!

I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel.

i went into watching this movie knowing it wasn't going to be great. but what i witnessed was to awful for words. i don't mean to be harsh, its just the movie was terrible. overall it had bad, i mean AWFUL special effects, the acting wasn't too bad, but wasn't good either, and sasquatch himself was like.... well, not sasquatch. in my opinion the best sasquatch movie is Harry and the Hendersons. its not violent or horror, but it has the best depiction of sasquatch. at least its a suit and not some half-ass cgi rip-off. only see this movie if you are desperate, or really appreciate anyone in the film. or go watch boondock saints, it is MUCH better.

I enjoyed Still Crazy more than any film I have seen in years. A successful band from the 70's decide to give it another try. They start by playing some gigs in some seedy European venues, with hilarious results. The music is fantastic, the script and acting are terrific. The characters are spot on, especially the lead singer with the high heavy metal voice, makeup and personality problems. The concert at the end was unreal. Go and see it, preferably in a cinema with a good sound system :)

Nightbreed is definitely my most favorite movie, I've worn more than one tape as it is. The make-up is awesome, the story is lovely. It takes a few different twists and isn't quite as deep as the story it's based on (Cabal, by Clive Barker) but for a movie adaption it stays very true to source material. The only problem with this movie were the producer's vain attempts to turn it into a teen slasher movie, hence the changed ending to allow for sequels *eye rolls*. Apparently someday we're going to be getting a Director's cut that will (I hope) clear up this bit of nonsense. Until then, I'd suggest it to anyone who like dark fantasy type horror as opposed to Freddy/Jason/Micheal type slashers. I really don't know what would be comparable...

And how it made it into production astounds me. The main character is an obnoxious show off who isn't the least bit funny. I can't stand the character at all. He's a dumb ass with nothing to offer the show. <br /><br />This is the worst cartoon to surface in the last 10 years, no joke. The story lines are both poorly written and executed. The jokes are as bad as the ones on Disney's Sweet Life of Zack and Cody. I could not dislike this show more, it's terrible and should be canceled. Even the theme song is bad. The title, even worse.<br /><br />It's as though this show is written by a couple of 15 year olds that based the character on themselves and think they're hot stuff when they're really just arrogant and lack creativity as well as humor.<br /><br />Johnny Test, go away far and fast!

Sending the Critters to space does seem like an entertaining idea, but was there really any need for a third film much less this fourth one? A film with Brad Dourif can't be all bad, can it? Well, maybe in this case. This cheap sci-fi effort stars returning lovable klutz Charlie(the reliable Don Keith Opper) who is about to eradicate the last two remaining eggs of the Critters' species when Ugh(Terrence Mann)tells him that he's about to break some sort of Trans-galactic Endangered species law. So at Ugh's request, Charlie places the two eggs in special holders inside a space pod. Unfortunately for Charlie, the damn thing takes off for space and he's trapped inside. The smoke under his feet places him into hibernation stasis and he awakes 53 years later inside a decrepit<br /><br />space station as Captain Rick, with fat cigar, rude alcoholic malevolence, and greedy to the core is blasting open the space pod trying to see what possible novelties are inside for possible sale or trade. Rick, unbeknown-est to him, lets out the two critters who feast on his flesh. You see Rick and his crew found the space pod drifting and had intense dollar signs flashing in their eyes so they dock it. Ugh reports to them(now in a fine, prominent position as Counselor)that money can be made if they dock at a space station under the Terracor organization. Once the crew dock, they find that this station is in ruin with many corridors in bad condition, but what's worse is the station computer Angela. Angela is a real thorn in the side to the crew because she has been left unrepaired without proper maintenance for some time. It takes some little tricks to get doors to open and close not to mention the elevators and computers. Brad Dourif is Al Bert, pretty much the impresario of computer functions(..and is pretty much the real leader of the group for he is the most level-headed and intelligent). He seems to be a father-figure to Ethan(Paul Witthorne)who just wants to make it to earth to find his father..this story though doesn't necessarily reach it's zenith. Bernie(Eric DaRe)is primarily in the film to be a druggie victim for the critters to munch on. In the film, Charlie, after one critter enters Rick's mouth and eats away at his throat{yuk}, becomes the crew's guide in understanding what they are fighting against. The film has some elements I found rather confusing{or for a better word, ridiculous)..the two critters grow in size quickly, are somehow able to coordinate a ship for Earth, not to mention grow themselves to massive size in this laboratory in the space station. The crew are able to tap into a log from a Dr. McCormick{Anne Ramsay, whose badge is found in a coat thrown to the side for which Ethan discovers her access card}which shows signs that Terracor was looking into creating a species to exterminate worlds and people. Knowing this bothers Al Bert who wishes to leave Angela and her bleeding station for greener pastures. Things don't work out that way because well-meaning Charlie(thanks in part to Al Bert's "ancient" Colt .45)kills a critter which had got on board, but in firing several bullets hits major guidance systems in the ship. So many repairs on in order, but they halt them when Ugh and his storm troopers dock at Angela and prove they are not what Charlie thought they'd be. Ugh is a changed man and Charlie realizes that he is completely evil and his mission is to preserve the Crites for purposes of a cruel nature(representation of corrupt corporate governmental types?). This betrayal is what changes Charlie..he has perhaps grown up a bit(a wee bit)and now understands that some people just change for the worse. Charlie and Ugh will come to a face-off over those critters..will the crew be able to escape a space station which has set auto-destruct? This film really doesn't exploit the critters as much as the other three films. I believe we can clearly see this as the true end to the franchise. The first film was a hoot..a really entertaining romp. But, by the time this sequel cam around, the critters just wore out their welcome. The cast, however, do give the film a boost. The critters do get to feed a bit, but their plans of global domination is under-developed. Their role in the film isn't established to the greatest heights. I said to myself,you have this enormous space station with unfortunates trapped on board.. could you not take this idea and run with it? Sadly, they don't.

This very low budget comedy caper movie succeeds only in being low budget. Dialog is dumbfoundingly stupid, chase scenes are uniformly boring, and most of the on-screen money seems to have been saved for a series of crashes and explosions in a parking lot during the film's last five minutes (a briefly glimpsed port-a-potty early in that scene is certain to wrecked and spew crap on the film's chief villain--no prop is here without a purpose). The whole film is depressingly reminiscent of those that occasionally came out of Rodger Corman's studio when he'd give a first time director a few bucks and a camera--but without the discipline Corman would impose.

When I saw previews of this movie I thought that it may be dumb, but it will at least be funny. Well I was wrong. Even though somewhere deep down the producers had an interesting message to convey about parents being left alone and re-evaluating their life, the way they tried to deliver that message was horrible. The first fifty times something silly happened to the couple was relatively funny. But by the end, I could almost predict what stupid mishap is going to happen next.<br /><br />Throughout the movie I like a total of maybe five lines of dialogue and everything else was at best mediocre, which is still more than I can say for the movie itself.

I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its "killer cut" of "more gore! more sex!" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?<br /><br />It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they "cut" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.<br /><br />From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.<br /><br />I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!

As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.

Maybe it gets better. I wouldn't know. I made it through the first twenty minutes or so before cutting it off and entering a period of mourning. It was obvious that the plot itself was a familiar one. A man, Paul LeMatt, a professor of entymology at Columbia, drives with his dog to a small town in Ohio in search of his ex wife, Diana Scarwid. There he encounters people who either ignore him or are hostile. Oh, they may smile but there's something going on underneath.<br /><br />That sort of arrangement is home turf for movie makers and viewers alike, and it's pregnant with possibilities. You can turn out a neatly drawn commercial success like "Bad Day at Black Rock." Or it would have made, and probably DID make, a nice "Twilight Zone" episode.<br /><br />The cast includes some seasoned performers too, as well as some formerly prominent names. Kenneth Toby, a veteran of science fiction, is the superficially amiable motel manager. Diana Scarwid can give an impressive performance, as she did in, say, "Silkwood." For some of the others, their range is limited.<br /><br />But it's poorly directed and shabbily written.<br /><br />Example of shabby direction. That dog of LeMatt's is disliked by Kenneth Toby, right off the bat. So when LeMatt walks out to the street, Toby sneaks up to the window of his room, peers in at the dog, and something zaps. Cut to LeMatt in the street. He hears his dog howling away. Then a POV shot of presumably the dog zipping along towards LeMatt then past him while the wind blows and LeMatt gawks at the camera. Cut to an identical shot -- coming from the other direction! Whatever the camera represents, whatever LeMatt is staring at, is never shown. Maybe it was nothing, because suddenly the wind stops and LeMatt is alone in the street, looking a little bit puzzled. "You should never have brought that dog in the first place," remarks a smiling Toby from the porch. Question: What the hell is that scene all about? <br /><br />Example of shabby writing. Well, TWO examples. (1) If you were to sit down and write a stereotypical waitress in a small-town diner, without the exercise of any craft whatever, you'd come up with an expressionless babe with her hair piled on top of her head, chewing gum, sauntering among the tables. Right. (2) Anything resembling believability is thrown out the window in favor of special effects. LeMatt's car chugs to a halt, then explodes while it is waiting to be fixed at the garage. Chugging to a halt: believable. Exploding: supernatural. Not even Edgar Allan Poe would endorse such an event.<br /><br />And the invaders themselves? Think of a modest masterpiece like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Something is going wrong in Dr. Kevin McCarthy's small town, and it takes half the movie for the mystery to be unraveled, and all the time suspense is building and doubt is growing. Here, twenty minutes into the movie, a stranger walks into a motel room and tears off his plastic face, revealing a pulsing, light-emitting, naked brain. The pregnancy is aborted.<br /><br />I won't tell you the ending because I don't know what it is, nor do I care. I suppose it had something to do with insects because why else would Paul LeMatt be an entymologist? (By the way, who's handling his classes?) But I'm not even sure bugs were involved. It's entirely possible that the bug business was adventitious. The writers may have made him a specialist in insects and then forgot all about it. It wouldn't surprise me.

Otto Preminger was one of the great maverick film directors.Like John Huston he was a character from one of his own movies,like Mr Huston he was a wonderful ham who slipped in and out of performance at random but the final product of his labours was unmistakably his own. With a few exceptions films are now made by corporations,not individuals,and as a result are usually highly-polished "packages",a product in much the same way as a golf ball,a tin of dog food or a motor car is a product.The involvement of human beings in the process is almost incidental.Such is the appetite for the product that there appears no end to the line of well-finished,glossy,superficially entertaining but ultimately empty films that flood the countless TV channels and movie outlets.There is no time for a man like Mr Preminger to stand a little apart from the torrent of "product" and craft a personal work of art. Of course there has always been the "Art for art's sake - money for Christ's sake" ethos in film-making,but now "Ars Gratia Artis" has,in all but name ,been consigned to history's cutting-room floor. Today Otto Preminger would be lucky to get a job delivering pizzas in Hollywood. Half a century ago,having made the hugely influential,"Laura","Where the sidewalk ends" and "The moon is blue",he set about filming Nelson Algren's controversial novel "The man with the golden arm" in his eccentric and individualistic manner.Rather than take his camera out onto the streets he stayed in the studio and used stylised almost Expressionistic sets,quirky casting(Mr Frank Sinatra - hot from his success in "From here to eternity",the young,inexperienced but breathtakingly beautiful Miss Kim Novak and Mr Arnold Stang,a man whose oddities were after his own heart)and a remarkable era - defining score by Elmer Bernstein featuring the cream of West Coast jazzmen. An Otto Preminger film was always an all-round experience ,to be considered as a whole rather than breaking it down into acting,directing,photography.What appeared on the screen was Preminger's vision,his creation and his interpretation of Algren's novel ,not a film of Algren's novel,any one of twenty competent Hollywood hacks coud have produced that. From the first hi-hat cymbal beat that accompanies Saul Bass's iconic title sequence we are drawn into Preminger's take on what is nowadays called "The Life",in truth a murky area occupied by hustlers,junkies,cops,drug dealers,stone gamblers,jazz musicians,their women and hangers-on.The lines are blurred in "The Life",and it's dog eats dog down there. The inhabitants circle each other like sharks,looking for a sign of weakness to be exploited.Frankie Machine(Mr Sinatra)a professional card dealer,ex-junkie and aspiring jazz drummer is a born victim.When things get tough he goes back to the needle.Although he kicks the habit by going cold turkey there are absolutely no guarantees that he won't go straight back on it further down the line. Mr Sinatra's depiction of an addict in the throes of withdrawal has divided the critics,but the fact of the matter is that even fifty years later most of us have probably never seen such a thing in real life so we don't know how accurate the portrayal is.When I first saw the film in the late 50s I was very impressed,watching it recently on video,it seemed ,to put it unkindly,hammy.Perhaps he is a victim of his own success as many actors subsequently "doing" cold turkey have,with the passing of the years,taken his performance and refined it somewhat. Arnold Stang is outstanding as Machine's pal Sparrow,a performance he exceeded only in "It's a mad,mad,mad,mad world". Try and watch it on the big screen and view it as the cinematic vision of a true auteur,a giant amongst today's pygmies - Otto Preminger.

I first saw this when it was picked as a suggestion from my TiVo system. I like Danny Elfman and thought it might be interesting. On top of that, I'm a fan of Max Fleischer's work, and this started out with the look and feel of his 30s cartoon. With both of those, I thought it would hold my interest. I was wrong. Just a few minutes in, and I had the fast forward button down. I ran through it in about 15 minutes, and thought that was it.<br /><br />Afterwards, I read some of the other reviews here and figured I didn't give it enough of a chance. I recorded it again and watched it through. There's 75 minutes of my life I'm not getting back.<br /><br />I can't believe there aren't more bad reviews. Personally, I think it's because it's hard to get to the 10 line comment minimum. How many ways are there to say this is a waste of time?<br /><br />The movie comes across as though it was made by a few junior high kids ready to outrage the world and thinking they can with breasts, profanity, and puke jokes. The characters are flat. The parody of "Swinging the Alphabet" is lame, essentially cobbling the tune, getting through A - E, hitting the obvious profanity a "F", and then having no idea where to go. The trip through the intestines to the expected landing doesn't work the first time, let alone the following ones. <br /><br />Across the board, the entire movie is what you would expect from someone trying to "out-South Park" Stone and Parker without the ability to determine what is and isn't funny. This might be amusing if you're high. Otherwise, it's not.

I really appreciate what Jung-won had done before his death. Everything. I want to say that his choice for love is unselfish. If he chose Da-rim , that will be good for him. But Da-rim will need more time to recover from his death. Obviously he does not want to let it happen. As he did in the film, he chose giving up. So it was just temporary agony for Da-rim.<br /><br />As comparison, My Life Without Me is very different. Their behavior shows big difference between eastern culture and western culture. I cannot say which is better. Every one can has right to choose. That is totally up to you. Life is equal for everybody. We can live only once. Any choice is acceptable if only you think it is fit for you.<br /><br />In truth the slow pace of the film cannot be the excuse for rejecting the movie. Just calm down. You will get more from the movie.<br /><br />One of the best Korean movies I ever watched. 9/10

Jumpin' Butterballs, this movie stinks! It's a dull and listless drag that never lets up. It's a wonder anyone even bothered to make Groucho up in his bizarre trademark eyebrows and mustache, as he has nothing witty or outrageous to do or say throughout this bore. Chico must have been so disinterested that he forgot to use his Italian accent.<br /><br />Only Harpo provides a grin or two, and there's precious little of that to go around here anyway. Figure in a loudmouthed hotel manager and another obnoxious co-comic in Frank Albertson, and the road gets even bumpier. <br /><br />A real misfire.

Amidst all the many problems that make this a dire piece of celluloid is the stupidest plot device in recent cinema history. Richard Gere determines who the Jackal's real target is through some form of revelation. He does not work anything out, it just comes to him. When in doubt "He's going after the First Lady!". This film blows chunks.

John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.<br /><br />My Grade: D+

The acting is excellent in this film, with some great actors. It was fun to see Fred McMurray as a young man. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful. This is not a comedy. It's a drama and the apparently comedic instances are pitiful, and some of them appear forced and contrived. It's in the script, though, not the fault of the acting.<br /><br />The 10 line requirement forces me to write some more...Hmmm. Loved Carole Lombard's My Man Godfrey, because it is a comedy and, while the acting is wonderful, the story line and the script itself, wins the day. Carole Lombard is pretty and a wonderful actress. I will try to watch Fred McMurray's features.

Oh, there are many worse Wayne movies. This movie is edited poorly but it has a campy element that makes watching it enjoyable. The villain is an Anglo actor who sports ridiculous Mexican clothes and affects an over-the-top Mexican accent which is hilarious. The girl is dressed like a Jean Harlow wannabe, this is 1934 after all. At least the location shots are beautiful and enjoyable.<br /><br />Watch it and laugh. Don't expect a serious western, but rather a lightweight and superficial story with poor acting but occasional flashes of camp humor. Wayne is almost ludicrously young and handsome and one can see his acting ability blossomed years after this regrettable venture.

This is one of the very best films i've seen in ages... it's right up there with the likes of trainspotting and pulp fiction. It just epitomises teenage culture today. The soundtrack is absolutely amazing... overseen by Pete Tong. It's a must see!

A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable.

This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.<br /><br />When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.<br /><br />One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.

I am a fan of bad horror films of the 1950s and 60s--films so ridiculous and silly that they are good for a laugh. So, because of this it's natural that I'd choose this film--especially because with John Agar in it, it was practically guaranteed to be bad. Sadly, while it was a bad film, it was the worst type of bad film--dull beyond belief and unfunny. At least with stupid and over-the-top bad films, you can laugh at the atrocious monsters and terrible direction and acting. Here, you never really see that much of the monster (mostly due to the darkness of the print) and the acting, while bad, is more low energy bad...listless and dull.<br /><br />The film begins with some young adults going to Satan's Hollow to neck. Well, considering the name of the place, it's not surprising when they are later found chewed to pieces! Duh...don't go necking at Satan's Hollow!! Well, there are reports of some sort of crashing object from the sky, so what do the teens go? Yep, throw a dance party--a very, very, very slow dance party where the kids almost dance in slow motion. So it's up to the Sheriff (Agar) and his men to ensure that the teens can dance in peace without fear of mastication.<br /><br />As for the monster, it's some guy in a gorilla suit with a silly mask--a bit like the monster in ROBOT MONSTER. Not exactly original and not exactly high tech. To make it worse, it makes snorting noises and moves very, very slowly--so slow that even the most corpulent teen could easily outrun it! How it manages to kill repeatedly is beyond me.<br /><br />Overall, too dull to like--even if you are a fan of lousy cinema.

I saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.<br /><br />This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.<br /><br />Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.<br /><br />I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any.

Another Son of Sam is definitely not an Oscar winner. Technically, it's horrible. The acting is not too good either. But there is something about it that makes you want to watch more (sort of like a car wreck). The ridiculous close-ups of the killers eyes are more funny than anything. If you are looking for a scare...this ain't the flick for you. It's very obscure and nearly impossible to find. I'm sure there's a reason for that. For a while, it was titled HOSTAGE. It don't matter what you call it, it's still a poor choice for entertainment. It might be good for a MST3000 party or something. Can you believe they would use such a title as ANOTHER SON OF SAM? If that don't have exploitation written all over it, I'll eat my hat. I remember when this was shot in Belmont, NC. A lot of local personalities were used as talent.

The original was a good movie. I bought it on tape and have watched it several times. And though I know that sequels are not usually as good as the original I certainly wasn't expecting such a bomb. The romance was flat, the sight gags old, the spoken humor just wasn't. This may not have been the worst movie I've ever seen but it comes close.

I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages?

Cactus Flower is what I call a "pizza movie" -A personal favorite that never fails to satisfy. Perfect for an evening at home with a pizza. Knowing all the lines (and what lines!) by heart only enhances the enjoyment.<br /><br />Since so many others here have retold the plot, I'll simply add the correction that Bergman's character, Miss Dickinson, was a nurse-receptionist, meaning she was a skilled nurse -and therefore an educated person -not "just" a receptionist.<br /><br />Bergman's performance in this film -and the film itself- was largely dismissed at the time, but today's audiences will marvel at her range; not just the impeccable comic timing, but the ability to make us believe her character is unaware of her own feelings while revealing them so clearly to Toni and to us. While the general plot stretches credibility, Bergman's performance is compelling: honest and utterly believable.<br /><br />Also a standout is Jack Weston's performance as the Matthau's old friend and co-conspirator, Harvey. No one could deliver a zinger like Weston, and I.A.L. Diamond's script gives him plenty. For example: "That's such a big, dirty, rotten lie it has class." Weston excelled at slightly seedy characters because he exuded a warmth that allowed you to forgive his characters' flaws. <br /><br />The film is a fairly straight adaptation of the Abe Burrows play (which was itself adapted from a French play by Barillet and Gredy). On Broadway Matthau's role was played by Barry Nelson. Bergman's by Lauren Bacall, and Hawn's by Brenda Vaccaro. It ran for 1,234 performances (three years) and was nominated for two Tony Awards (Vaccaro and Burt Brinckerhoff, who played Igor).<br /><br />For me, the film's score, written and adapted by the legendary Quincy Jones is another highlight. The main theme (A Time For Love Is Anytime) is performed by Sarah Vaughn over the opening and closing credits. It is also insinuated in different arrangements throughout the film, most notably as the romantic piano music underscoring Berman's speech to Hawn in the record store. Jones also created covers of popular songs from the period (To Sir With Love, I'm A Believer) for the night club scenes. As with all of the film's elements, there is a tremendous amount of talent, taste, and professionalism evident. <br /><br />In my opinion, few modern romantic comedies can hold a candle to this classic. It's great to finally have it available on DVD. Time to call for a pizza...

It's hard to use words for this movie, since it contains none itself.<br /><br />But the images it conveys, both powerful and sweeping, are ones which remind us why we watch movies. And you might be saying "Well, Leonard Maltin doesn't like it, it can't be that good.." But you're wrong. See this movie. French cinematic brilliance en ensemble.

This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.

This unassuming, fairly routine series deserves credit in the TV history books for two reasons: it was the first to win an Emmy award for best syndicated series, and it was the very first show to come from the fabled studios of Republic Pictures, known for its low-budget but high-powered shoot-em-ups in the 30's and 40's.<br /><br />Republic was one of the first Hollywood studios to make a leap into the small screen, which was still in its infancy. But the studios' tenure as producer of TV pulp fiction would be brief. After this show, they would later dabble with the other format that they were known for, the adventure serial, with "Commando Cody", as well as other series, but like this one, they didn't last longer than 39 episodes. Also, Republic was in its last stages as a studio; it would finish out its tenure in Hollywood as rental stages for several Revue Studio series such as "Soldiers of Fortune", the original "Dragnet", and "Kit Carson", before finally shutting its doors in 1959.<br /><br />Anyway, "Stories of the Century" wasn't that bad of an oater, its calling card was tales based on authentic figures in Western history, mainly outlaws like Black Bart, Johnny Ringo, John Wesley Hardin, The Dalton Bros. and the like. The late Jim Davis, best known for his role as the Ewing patriarch in "Dallas", put in an amiable job in the lead role as Matt Clark, a fictional railroad detective who has to contend with said outlaws, played by veteran and soon-to-be veteran character actors.<br /><br />Two amazing facts here: The incidents would take place in different time lines, some in the 1880's, some at the turn of the century, but Clark never ages. And also, Matt has the good luck to saddle himself with two lovely female detectives as sidekicks, Frankie Adams, played by Mary Castle, and her replacement, Margaret "Jonesy" Jones, by Kristine Miller. The Lone Ranger could only wish for lady companionship. You can only spend such time with Tonto for so long.<br /><br />"Stories Of The Century" is a Studio City TV production from Republic Pictures Corp. 39 episodes were made during 1954, all 39 of which are in public domain and on DVD.

Despite decades of tax incentives, in terms of international visibility the Canadian film industry still lags behind most central African and Islamic states (surprisingly few Canadian films are released outside their native shores), and Nouvelle-France aka Battle of the Brave is another example of why. More than any other country, commercial Canadian cinema seems unable to develop an identity of its own and is stuck in pale imitation of other countries' failures. On paper this historical drama could look vaguely promising. There's certainly a rich vein of untapped material in Canada's history as the French and English warred over and bought and sold the colony, though none of it makes the cut here unless you count the odd blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene of characters saying "Wolfe is dead" or "Nouvelle-France is no more" before getting back to the soap operatics. But while this isn't a history lesson, it isn't a drama or the epic adventure the new title promises either: there is no battle in the film unless you count 10 seconds of shelling by a half-dozen re-enactors and one collapsed shed. The town square that is all we ever see of Quebec is a rather obvious flatly lit studio interior, giving many scenes an old TV miniseries look, as does director Jean Beaudin's reluctance to offer much in the way of long shots or even exteriors. What you do get for your money is a simple but drawn-out Harlequin romance about doomed lovers constantly separated by events beyond their control where the biggest surprise is that Fabio doesn't turn up in the cast. It's the kind of film where whenever two characters are about to make the beast with two backs the camera pans over to a convenient raging fireplace or waterfall.<br /><br />An Anglo-Canadian-French co-production that doesn't so much unite once-warring nations as throw any country with a decent tax break into the stew, this massive box-office disaster was clearly intended to be Canada's Titanic - though someone neglected to tell the producers they meant the film, not the ship - but turns out more like Revolution done on the cheap without the battle scenes, crowds or the few moments that threaten to briefly work in the face of overwhelming odds. The Montreal Mirror described it as "so bad that one can't even find the strength to mock it." That's rather unfair, because while for most of its running time the film looks like a below-par 80s miniseries, the last half hour suddenly becomes very funny, with characters accidentally putting their legs in bear traps, dastardly husbands declaring "You'll never see your handsome lover again, cuckold's honor! You'll pay for this, both of you!" and our heroine accused of murder and - gasp! - witchcraft in a trial funny enough to have been in Demi Moore's version of The Scarlet Letter. Throw in caddish British governors, devious slaves and Celine Dion singing at the end and you've got something that at times almost feels like the kind of film that Timbo Hines was aspiring to (and still managed to miss wildly) with his legendarily inept period version of War of the Worlds, albeit without the staggering technical incompetence.<br /><br />Leading man David La Haye's versatility seems limited to the number of other actors he can look like throughout the course of the film: he starts out looking like Andy Garcia, briefly adopts the Al Pacino Revolution look, flirts with the clean-shaven Tchéky Karyo style before turning into a younger Ted Danson as his character ages. While his opening scene where he reacts to news of his father's death with an expression that looks like he's waiting for the director to tell him he can go home now promises a feast of bad acting, in reality he gives the impression more of a mediocre supporting actor who's lucked into a lead at the last minute when whoever was originally cast finally read the script and bailed. He shows willing and gives it a go but the grace and charisma the part needs just isn't there. Billie Piper lookalike Noemie Godin-Vigneau's leading lady doesn't exactly set the screen alight either despite occupying center-stage as the peasant girl who is the prey of giggly Vincent Perez's corrupt and perverted Intendant Le Bigot (that really is the character's name), the duplicitous goateed drunken lackey Sebastien Huberdeau and, saddest of all, Gerard Depardieu's bedridden revolutionary dirty old priest in a manky grey-haired wig. It's a truly pitiful sight to see a once great actor at the absolute rock bottom of his game as he shuffles through the motions looking like he's not just lost the will to act but the will to live along with it. He clearly couldn't be bothered to stick around for the English dubbing sessions (or even a couple of long shots where he is very noticeably doubled). Small wonder he talked of retiring around the time of the film's brief release.<br /><br />Some brief comic relief is provided by Jason Isaacs in his default Patriot mode who overplays Wolfe of Quebec rather like an asthmatic Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker played by Timothy Dalton on speed while Tim Roth's William Pitt stands on the sidelines with the occasional bemused smile of one who's being put up in a rather nice hotel with excellent room service and plenty of days off, though like Colm Meaney's Benjamin Franklin they're both in the film for less than three minutes. (Voltaire and Madame Pompadour pop their heads around the door for a couple of minutes as well but fail to make any impression, comic or otherwise.) The supporting actresses are generally better: Juliette Gosselin and Bianca Gervais as the heroine's real and adopted daughters and a strikingly beautiful Irene Jacob looking for all the world like a young Fanny Ardant are all refreshingly good and deserve much better.

Hello Dave Burning Paradise is a film for anyone who likes Jackie Chan and Indiana Jones. The films main protagonist is most definitely the bastard son of these two strange fathers. As for the other characters well they are familiar transformations of similar action film stereotypes. Where this film is original is in the blending of the traditional Hong Kong movie style with the Hollywood action adventure. Sadly this has not been true of the films he has made in Hollywood.

1933 seemed to be a great year for satires ("Duck Soup" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the "Goings On About Town" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire.

What happens when someone has so much social anxiety that they cease to function? How alone can one man get? When the mundane crap we have to do in order to be part of society gets to be too much, what happens? Frownland explores these questions. Definitely a startling original debut from Bronstein. The tone is strange and claustrophobic as we get inside the mind of a guy named Keith that is so messed up he can hardly form a proper sentence. We follow him around as he tries to make contact with people and function day to day. Most of us have known people like this- people that say "sorry" too much or "i appreciate it" when there's nothing to appreciate. So we know there are people out there like this but why would someone want to make a movie about them? Well, because its interesting and Bronstein and the lead actor, Dore Mann, do an excellent job. This film is about as un-commercial as a film can get. A few friends filmed it over the course of a few years as they saved money. It was shot on 16mm and the scratched film look is beautifully low budget. With no distributer, this may be a tough one to find, I think it's been screening randomly for the past year or so. Hopefully it'll be on DVD at some point. I saw it at the Silent Movie Theater here in LA. There were 10 people in the audience, among them Crispin Glover, if that tells you anything about how weird this movie is. Highly recommended.

What seemed as a good premise for a movie...unfortunately it fails to deliver on nearly every level. Very hard to follow at the start of the movie I actually found myself fighting the urge to turn it off the biggest problem from a visual aspect is the fact that the camera work is simply over the top with so many "arty" splicings and semi-subliminal cuts throughout the movie that actually distracts you from the from the overall story. It really tries too hard to immerse you in the moment and build to a suspenseful ending but the movie just has so many half conceived characters and non relevant script it just leaves you feeling disappointed and confused as to why they tried to go so deep with it.

Ingrid Bergman (Cleo Dulaine) has never been so beautiful. Gary Cooper as "Cleent" so perfectly cast as a laconic Texan who knows this gal is up to no good. When the two lock eyes at the French Market, we know this match will be full of sparks. When they stroll in her garden in her restored French Quarter house and the love theme plays it is a dream for all us romantics.<br /><br />The costumes are lovely; the set decoration makes you wish the "Quarter" was just that way. And that Saratoga still had that hotel with the wide veranda with all the old biddies gossiping.<br /><br />From Edna Ferbers novel, the story is of revenge for old wrongs and the fights over who would run the railroads in the early days of that industry.<br /><br />In the Saratoga scenes, Florence Bates as a grand dame steals every scene.<br /><br />But it is the scene of Cleo taking on the little lawyer her New Orleans relatives have sent to buy her off that is a Magic Movie Moment. After Cleo has bested him in the negotiations, he looks at her with longing and says "may I say - you are very-beautiful". And Cleo with a happy, wicked smile says "yes, isn't it lucky." You want to shout "YES"!!!<br /><br />One of my all time favorite romantic films.

It is not an easy film to watch - it is over three and a half hours long and it is composed entirely of conversations. Yet it is so incredibly compelling and ruthlessly observational of the human character, that it is, in my humble opinion, one of the very greatest films of all time.<br /><br />The film is depressing, cynical and cruel. (If you want something uplifting, see Jacques Rivette's fantastic Céline and Julie Go Boating, which was made around the same time). It shows the idealism of the late 1960s to be nothing different from the society that it was trying to change.<br /><br />It involves a supposedly liberated ménage-à-trois between Alexandre (played by Jean-Pierre Leaud), Marie (Bernadette Lafont) and Veronika (Francoise Lebrun). Yet Alexandre is shown to be as chauvinistic and jealous as any other man. The women are exposed as being willingly subservient and defining their femininity through the male gaze.<br /><br />The film is an extremely icy end to the highly revolutionary French New Wave. This movement was one of the most significant movements in film history and had a profound effect on cinema as we know it. Jean-Pierre Leaud was one of the key actors of the New Wave, having starred (among other films) in the influential Les Quatres Cent Coups (1959) by Francois Truffaut as a rebellious teenager. Director Jean Eustache is not as well known as other directors from the New Wave, but he should be.<br /><br />There is no improvisation (unlike in John Cassavetes's similar films made in the US) and the dialogue comes from real-life conversations. The film is resonant with Eustache's personal experiences. For example, Francoise Lebrun was a former lover of Eustache. Eustache himself committed suicide in 1981 and the real-life person that the character Marie was based on, did too. The anger and bitterness all culminate in a harrowing monologue by Veronika delivered directly to the audience, breaking down the coldly objective nature of the rest of the film. This mesmerising, personal, and honest filmic statement remains one of the most revealing films of human nature around.

"Shore Leave" is mostly an average Star Trek adventure. Nothing wrong with the episode, though. I simply think that this is not the best representation of what the show had to offer to fans. It is lightweight entertaining, nothing more. However, I'm glad to see that a TV show of this type had enough good sense to take a break from serious intergalactic conflicts. In this episode, Kirk decides to grant his crew some time off, and a landing party is beamed down to a planet that looks like the perfect place for a vacation. As usual, the planet is not as peaceful as it appears to be. There are some action and tense moments, but most of the story is played for laughs. Good, but unexceptional.

The 3 stars are for Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Nothing else and no one else in this movie deserves even a wee smidgen of a star. Well, OK, Amy Adams deserves a wee smidgen, but the smidgenometer doesn't seem to be working, so I'll stick with 3. Tom Hanks...nothing. Julia Roberts...nothing. Mike Nichols...do you see a trend yet? Aaron Sorkin...OMG, not a chance. <br /><br />I could rant on for several paragraphs about the way Charlie Wilson's War glosses over history, morality, legitimacy and so on, but I don't think any such rant could outweigh the gushing of Aaron Sorkin fans. The rest of you, beware.Spend your movie money elsewhere.<br /><br />Still, if you're looking for a pithy comment, here's mine. You can put hot fudge sauce on a pile of garbage, but it changes nothing. Garbage is garbage and so is Charlie Wilson's War.

I can catogoricaly and unequivocally say that in all my 51 years on this planet that is the worse (supposibly children's) film i have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />I took my three grand children to see it and even they were struggling to raise a smile during the all tortuous 90 mins. The sexual indendoes i will leave for another day but they were as tasteless as the film. They should pay YOU to watch it not you pay them. It's truly truly awful, there is no other way to describe it. The people that made this film should be brought to task for taking money under false pretences.<br /><br />Aplogise for my spelling mistakes but i am so upset that it spoilt the time i had with my grandchildren Regards, Stephen

Dear SciFi Channel: How have you been? How was your summer? I've been OK, but I feel like our relationship isn't the same anymore and we're growing apart. I don't understand why you don't love me anymore. I've just finished watching your SciFi Channel Original "Skeleton Man" and, once again, you've shown a blatant lack of respect for my feelings by KILLING OFF EVERY HOT GIRL IN THIS MOVIE!!! I mean, I understand that you're just in this for instant gratification. All you care about is producing a movie where people get sliced and diced by a homicidal Indian spirit/creature/legend/whatever. So you really don't have time to put some thought and effort into anything else -- like finding a costume for Skeleton Man that doesn't make him like the gay lover of Skeletor from "He-Man." Seriously, his robe looks like a satin blanket sheet and his skull is smooth as a baby's behind, he almost looks like a killer Halloween-costume-for-a-6-year-old as he marches through the wilderness on a homicidal rampage. So we throw you a bone, because we're not looking for Oscar-winning performances, intriguing plot or realistic character reactions to the situations at hand. Because we realize that even though Michael Rooker, Caspar van Diem and all the girls are supposed to be trained Special Ops agents, they are all mysteriously transformed into Keystone Kops who can't shoot or see straight whenever Skeleton Man appears. And we also fully expect that nothing -- bullets, explosions, electrocution, nothing -- can kill Skeleton Man until there is one minute left in the movie and we need to find a way to tie things up neatly. We expect to see blood and guts. But you have a knack for taking the least attractive actress in the entire cast and making her the only female who survives. And quite honestly, I think you do it just to antagonize me. Because this movie, as silly as it is, has the potential to be a "so-bad-it's-good" classic and just killing off all the hotties ruins everything -- and forces me to lower its rating. All I ask is that once, just once, you take my feelings into account and let the sexiest girls survive the movie. Please.

i have been watching this movie repeatedly, since it came out. even though it is 8 years old now, it still cracks me up. the jokes are still hilarious and the way the characters are portrayed will make anybody of any age laugh like they've never laughed before. Enjoy it

I watched DVD 1 only. The program proper may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.<br /><br />Also, Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie. It never gets back on topic.<br /><br />Religious people are prone to discount skeptics when their objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people seem irrational, and therefore unconvincing.<br /><br />Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.<br /><br />In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was too short.<br /><br />If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.<br /><br />And perhaps he could lend his "Christ never walked the earth" material to a more serious documentarian. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.<br /><br />The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti-religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non-Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .

"Bar Hopping" seems to be trying to be about the stereotypical bar tender and lay "shrink" serving up pearls of wisdom followed by example vignettes played out by the cast. However, this turkey is a jumbled mess with a script full of simple-minded cliched nonsense: Hard to follow, herky-jerky flow, unsatisfying, and not worth the time. (D)

Did the first travesty actually make money? This is another sequel (along the lines of ANOTHER STAKEOUT) that no one asked for. But we've received it anyway. The sequel is like its predecessor, completely brain-dead. It's also pretty disgusting (remember the dinner scene?) To think I almost felt sorry for Ritter, Yasbeck, and Warden. Did they need the money that much?

Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of a famous restaurant in California. He has a lovely wife, Grace Horn (Rosanna Arquette), who is pregnant, and a beautiful son of about five years old. Sammy indeed loves his family, but like Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, he has a double life, having sex with many different women. Dr. Jane Bordeaux (Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him. OK, it is my fault: I read the summary of the other IMDB user comments, I saw the IMDB user rating, but I really did not believe that Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski could participate in such a bad movie. I decided to check it, and actually some comments are very complacent. The storyline, the screenplay and the dialogs are so silly and laughable that even in some X-rated movies we can find more intelligent stories. The photography is so amateurish and naive that in some parts it seems to be taken through a VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres does not have sense of ridiculous: being an old man, bald, would be acceptable in an advertisement of Viagra or grandfather of the small boy. But as an attractive man who gets and has sex with any woman, it is scary. In Wood Allen's comedy, maybe he got a chance, but in a `serious' movie, it is funny. I am trying to figure out why or how Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash movie. Do they need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Are they friends of the `director' (sorry for using this word) and decided to help and promote him? I do not know whether the intention of Rosanna Arquette was to show her breasts full of silicone, but it is unacceptable that such a great actress accepts such a script. The same is applicable to the gorgeous Nastassja Kinki. She is presented fat, without make-up, without any glamour. A total lack of respect with one of the most beautiful actress in the cinema history. A fact is really intriguing me: how can a reader, without any personal interest, promote this trash, giving higher ratings or writing favorable comments about this movie? Are they friends of the `director' (again, I am using this word...) or the cast? It sounds very strange to me that a normal IMDB reader can like such a film. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Viciado Em Sexo' (`Addicted In Sex')

A fairly typical Australian movie where the underdog saves the day inspite of himself. I guess there is no real reason to see this pic if you have seen "The Castle" or "The Dish". It still leaves you with a positive feeling at the end and it as good or better than most Hollywood stuff.

"The Screaming Skull" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw "House on Haunted Hill" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.<br /><br />In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat!

I own Ralph Bakshis forgotten masterpiece Fire & Ice on an old OOP rental videotape.<br /><br /> Well for one thing, this is better than any other Conan-esque film you'll ever see. Sure, it's cheesy, but who cares? It stood the test of time, and the only way it started to look cheesy is in comparisons to modern fantasy epics like LOTR:FOTR (though I love that film.)<br /><br /> The plot goes like this: After a battle between Fire & Ice, a kings daughter is kidnapped by Jarols (Ice) subhuman creatures, while a sole survivor of a victimized village rescues her.<br /><br /> Yeah it doesn't sound as a original as Nurse Betty, but that's not the point. It is really to bring to life an interesting idea of a world of two enemies: Fire & Ice. And it succeeds.<br /><br /> As for the action scenes: superb. They are well handled, have terrific suspence, and have plenty of loud noises. Just check out the climatic battle, now THAT'S an ending!<br /><br /> The acting and dialogue: competent. Really. They aren't gonna be nominated for an Oscar, but they are OK and don't get on your nerves.<br /><br /> The animation is quite good. Shot on 3D and rotoscoped (I THINK), it looks pretty good. A lot of the backgrounds look really detailed and well drawn, and although the character designs feel a little 1-dimentional, they are OK.<br /><br /> Overall, this is a fine neglected little gem and will entertain you more than any of the superfical "entertainment". 10/10

I've never seen the original movie others have commented on, so my perspective is just about this movie without comparison.<br /><br />I found the message of the movie to be,: if you only worry about yourself, all will be right with the world, everything will fall into place, your lovers will love you more, your friends will respect and like you more, your employers will want you more, pay you more and even your own children and parents will love you more.<br /><br />I find this message to be reprehensible and totally false.<br /><br />Kudos for the very funny birthing scene at the end; there isn't a mother out there who won't laugh during that scene.<br /><br />Overall a very disappointing movie plot. I didn't find myself rooting for anyone in this movie. I thought they were all pathetic self absorbed individuals that I just didn't care what happened to them and that's not a movie people want to see.

I thought they should have called this movie "Whites" instead of "Heights". Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor.

****MINOR SPOILERS*** As a bad movie connoisseur I must have viewed hundreds of bad movies and yet "Hobgoblins" stands apart from all others in it's own unique way. Classic baddies such as "The Creeping Terror," "The Mighty Gorga" and "Manos" are uniformly bad from start to finish. "Hobgoblins" on the other hand, starts off bad and gets progressively worse as it goes. During my first viewing of the infamous rake fight scene I thought to myself that this was a truly bad film. I was blissfully unaware that I had just seen the best that this movie had to offer. The movie takes its most massive nosedive into celluloid hell during the painfully inept "Club Scum" sequence which is a continuous string of one unfunny joke after another. With just this one film, director Rick Sloane proves that he deserves mention alongside the likes of Coleman Francis and Bill Rebane as one of the worst directors of all time. How bad can a bad movie be? Watch "Hobgoblins" and wonder no longer.

This is simply another bad Chuck Norris movie. Norris plays a cop on the trail of a twisted serial killer of women. He put the guy away three years before, but the guy somehow gets through the bars in the nut house he's in by using what looks like dental floss. Then the killer escapes in a cleaning van and drives it over a 400 foot cliff and survives to spend time around a theater undergoing renovation. Irish Jack O'Halloran is the best thing in this movie, but like in Superman II, he doesn't say a word. Somehow that's supposed to make him more menacing. Ron O'Neal of Super Fly fame and Steve James are wasted playing the city's mayor and Norris' sidekick respectively. The film also contains the idiotic subplot of Norris and his girlfriend having a child out of wedlock; it's so 1980's. When coupling Norris' "serious" acting turn with over-the-top musical cues signaling every forthcoming scene in predictable fashion, the film becomes a chore to sit through. The build-up while searching for the killer in the theater is interesting enough with Norris crawling through the shadows to discover the hideaway, but the end fight is disappointing after beginning in such a promising way. It's yet another disappointment from Cannon Films, and it plays like a movie made for television. * of 4 stars.

For once a Barbie movie that is good. I'm 18 and a embarrassed to say this but I'm hooked on these movies. I hated Barbie when I was younger but the movies I love. Shiver is so cute and I've fallen in love with him. He's so cute as the polar bear and totally in love with Aiden. Oh man I'm in love with Shiver. I love Annika determination not to give up on hope and eventfully it works. I love this movie and hopefully they will be other good ones. Barbie & Swan Lake is other brilliant movie. I would recommend this movie to children of all ages (even boys) because the movie is that good and I'm hard to please. Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is a movie that is enchanting and exciting.

Please make me forget. Please. Please. This is the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to watch. I consider the film an insult to my brain as well as my backside who both have suffered from me sitting and watching this film. I have yet to see what damage it has caused my sight and my ability to complete sentences. What a load of garbage!! And don't get me started about the acting... Someone please help me forget!! "Weird Science" -- come back!! Everything is forgiven...<br /><br />I am "proud" to give this film the first 1 here at IMDb... And I've voted for hundreds of films... Many of them c**p but this is so bad I can't even believe it. Someone actually came up with the idea and thought it was worthy of becoming a film? Someone actually read the script and decided to produce the film? Someone read the script and auditioned for it? Someone saw the film and decided *not* to put it on a shelf to collect dust for eternity? *These* are the questions I want answers to. Not the philosophical question about that tree in the woods and well, you know...

My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.<br /><br />I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see. <br /><br />I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment. <br /><br />The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.<br /><br />I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying "I love you, mommy" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke.

<br /><br />This is without a doubt the funniest comedy of the year. Everybody is brilliant. The acting is superb. You can see that the actors enjoyed making this film. It´s a shame to spoil the film with give aways, so rent it and laugh your ass off.<br /><br />9 - 10.

Unlike other commenters who have commented on this movie's ability to transcend race, contrarily, I think that this powerful film provides a complex and deep story that addresses institutional racism and the effects thereof. Washington directs Fisher's story with a careful hand and critical eye, relinquishing this cinematic endeavor neither to dismemberment of women's bodies, perpetuating unthoughtful stereotypes, nor satisfying the expectation of the white gaze. I think this film might be a bit too happy in the end; however, it is deeply entrenched in Afro-American culture and discourse to the point that some white spectators may get the feeling of looking into the life of this Afro-American--Antwone Fisher. I have problems with the Naval aspect of the film, but when we look at America, there are not many choices or opportunities for black men who are/were in Fisher's situation or similar situations. Viewers may go to this movie expecting a "Black Movie: what is a "Black Movie?"<br /><br />Do stereotypes of pimps, whores, drug dealers, single parent homes, and so forth constitute a "Black Movie?" I think Washington as director recognized that Afro-Americans and other people of color deal with human problems like abuse and displaced aggression to name a few. These problems have--historically and presently--only been given light and validity via "Good Will Hunting" and other white movies; it's high time they were given the same recognition and validity as their white counterparts in and out of the media.<br /><br />Sad to say though, in this racist country, Denzel Washington and Derek Luke will probably have to wait another ten years before they receive an Oscar or anything else. They both will have to wait until they direct or star in a movie that perpetuates the usual racist and sexist stereotypes to get an Oscar. That is to say, Denzel deserved awards for "Malcolm X," "Hurricane" and others before that jive "Training Day" Oscar. That is not to negate or push aside other great actresses and actors of color who are denied their due praise for ingenious work. Yet Hollywood would rather send the message that racism and sexism and heterosexism are acceptable by perpetuating and even rewarding those stereotypes as they appear in countless films such as "American Beauty," "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," "American Pie," and even "Gone with the Wind."<br /><br />Derek Luke is a helluva actor and I wish him best. All of the other actresses and actors gave superb performances hands down, although I do take issue with Denzel's selection of yet another straight-haired, light-skinned sistuh. That said, everyone should watch this film. However, it may not be for everyone. Much Luv. 10/10

We all knew even before it aired, the Ron Moore mini-series is no Battlestar Galactica. That's fine. It just means it must stand on its own. It can't lean on Battlestar Galactica. If it's any good, it's good on it's own merits, and Ron Moore has something to be proud of. If reports are true, this is what Moore wanted. However, if his mini-series rots, he has shamed all the excellent actors that performed on-screen, not to mention the myriad off-screen personnel. And this is what he's done.<br /><br />Yes, this mini-series is no remake. I wouldn't even call it a re-imagining. It's a new production, inspired by Battlestar Galactica. It does not take place in the Galactica universe, with the same places and jargon and technology. It doesn't tell of the Galactica's search for the thirteenth tribe. Nor does it rely on the legends and mysteries that underpinned Galactica. Ron Moore's mini-series is a space-opera, action flick with a ceremonial nod to Battlestar Galactica.<br /><br />Maybe I should say, "just another" space-opera, action flick. Because as plots go, his has little that's original, or even interesting. I could relay the whole thing to you without a spoiler warning. But I won't inflict that on you. I'll just hit the most important point. Ready now? Here it is: Just watch the trailer. It will tell you everything there is in the story.<br /><br />Yes, creations of man turn on man and seek to destroy man. (I guess they forgot Azimov's rules, again.) They look like humans, so there's the whole aliens-among-us thing. At least there's no time-travel. Oh, and lots of fighting scenes and random acts of sex and violence. The end result was that when Moore did draw from Galactica, that ceremonial nod, it came off more corny than respectful. I mean, couldn't he even think up anything of his own?<br /><br />From the first few minutes, I wanted to watch something else. I didn't care about any of Moore's characters, since I couldn't identify with any of them. This fact hit me in the face when the Cylons began their attack. Armageddon on a planetary scale, and I didn't give a damn. How depressing.<br /><br />Moore's heroes when faced with an insurmountable obstacle, instead of overcoming it, rather tucked tail and saved their own butts. After all, it was the only way to save humanity, yadda yadda yadda. They took the safe way out, rather than risking their own lives to defend others. At least disgust is not apathy.<br /><br />But in the end, the Ron Moore mini-series was just activity without purpose, a movie on a treadmill, forever running yet going nowhere. And I just wanted it to be over. And by the time it was over, my life-force had been sucked from me. Against my own will, I was turning into a mindless, soulless zombie, probably of the type to which this mini-series would appeal. I needed to replenish myself. I needed to-and I swear this is true-I needed to watch an episode of Babylon 5. Two episodes, in fact, and I felt much better. And happier.

Adrian has just gone out of the asylum, being rich and with no parents, his life seems empty. One day, he meets Gonzalo, a poor boy whom mother is prostitute. Desperate for earning some money, Gonzalo helps Adrian to search about his life and who where his parents. This is a movie from a new director, and it is perfectly clear in most of the film: scenes not correctly directed, dialogues a little forced, some incoherences in the script...Anyway, the ending is unexpectedly well done (well, just a little) and that saves a little the film. Actors are known and with great quality, nevertheless, they are not inspired enough to make the movie interesting; all of them have done better papers in other film. The film results boring and probably you will spend most of the time thinking how much time will pass until it ends. Of course there are lots of worse films, but, sure, there are many many better ones.

Spike lee has to be one of the most over rated directors I have ever seen. He is the critic's darling because he supposedly makes films with a "message" or he is just so bohemian in his approach that it makes critics that are waterlogged from formula Hollywood films eat his stuff up just for being different.<br /><br />Summer Of Sam does not even do that well. The cinematography and editing style is Oliver Stone, and so is the narrative. The plot is a lot like "Do The Right thing". The portrayal of "Guidos" or for the PC set Italian-Americans (of which I happen to be one) is straight out of Eddie Murphy's Raw. Only Eddie Murphy's impression of a macho Italian guy picking a fight with a much taller African-American is much, MUCH more believable than the cartoonish, broad Italian caricatures shown here (the John Leguizamo character being a possible exception).<br /><br />Is there anybody who saw this movie that could not figure out how it was going to end up? As soon as Richie came into the film I could already see the fist in his face and the foot in his stomach, I could already see him being accused of being the killer. This character had the most integrity in the whole film so, of course, Lee is going to show what happens to people that stand out in a crowd (what a white bearded clique!)<br /><br />Someone please, please give Spike Lee a lifetime pass to all the Basketball games he wants. So, maybe he will be enjoying himself too much to pick up a film camera for a long time and we won't have to be subjected to his self important drivel and furthermore I won't have to see critics (some of them whom I respect) ohhhh and ahhhh to an Emperor with no clothes.