Datasets:

avsolatorio

/

mteb-imdb-avs_triplets

like 1

Yes, the cameras were in the right place at the right time. It's so interesting to see how a world leader (like Chavez) who supports the poor people in his country, can be held in such low esteem in the US. His worst "sin", in my opinion, is caring about those who are at the bottom of the barrel. What can be so bad about that? I have always been fascinated by the US government+media reaction to Fidel Castro. At first, Castro was a good guy (around 1959) when he supplanted Batista. Soon, however, Castro started turning the corporations in Cuba toward the needs of the poor instead of the fat cats. We're a decent country, but why does our media and government have such a problem with sharing with the poor? If these guys are "dictators," then we could use more "dictatorships" especially where the poorest of the poor live in the world.

positive

Of all the versions of the Odyssey (or of any Greek mythological story for that matter), this in my opinion is the best of them all. Almost true to the original storyline - with some minor deviations and omissions, e.g. the absence of Scylla & Charybdis and the fact that Eumaeus the swineherd recognizes Odysseus in disguise in his hut - realistic acting and authentic scenery and costumes all contribute to make this a truly memorable masterpiece,not some Hollywoodish sword-and-sandal B-flick. Notwithstanding the fact that the dialogue and subtitles are completely in Italian, if one is familiar with the storyline, he can still make heads and tails of what is going on and what the actors are saying (provided you have a good handy text of the Odyssey at hand). At least I did, and so much so that it has inspired me to study the Italian language to better appreciate the movie even more.

positive

The novelty of hearing clean-cut Jay Leno spout four-letter words is the only memorable aspect of this formulaic mismatched-police-partners caper. In COLLISION COURSE, the pelican-faced comedian teams up with the late Pat Morita to track down a stolen prototype turbocharger (think car lover Leno played a hand in the plot?). The two leads try hard, they really do, but Leno is no actor and Morita's fish-out-of-water routine gets old in a hurry. The film carries a bit of cheesy '80s appeal, but its worthy moments become increasingly scarce as it fills out its overlong 100-minute running time. Fans of Leno's considerable comedic talents will feel let down; everyone else will just be bored.

negative

When Rodney Dangerfield is on a roll, he's hilarious. In My 5 Wives, he's not on a roll. The timing of the one-liners is off, but they're the best thing going for the movie. The five women who play the wives don't add up to one whole actress between them. The plot is very weak. Even the premise is pretty weak; there are a few jokes about having multiple wives, but the situation has little to do with anything else in the movie. Most of the movie could play the same way even if Rodney's character had only one wife, so the premise seems more like an old man's fantasy than a key part of the comedy. Another old man's fantasy: we're supposed to accept that Rodney's character is an athletic skier.<br /><br />Jerry Stiller seems to be phoning in his role just to do a buddy a favor, and the rest of the name actors must simply be desperate for work.<br /><br />The odd nods to political correctness later in the movie don't really do anything for the movie. For those who like their movies politically correct, the non-PC humor is still there in the first place, and the seeming apologies for it still don't get the point. For those who hate seeing a movie cave in to political correctness, the PC add-ins are just annoying digressions.<br /><br />This has to be the mildest R-rated movie I've ever seen. There are some racy jokes, and the bedroom scenes would have made shocking TV 40 years ago, but that's about it. Maybe it was the topless men (kidding).<br /><br />The DVD features interviews where the cast members seem to find depth and importance in this movie and in their roles. I kept wondering if they were serious or kidding. They seem to be serious, but I kept thinking, "They must be kidding!" There's also a peculiar disclaimer suggesting that since the movie never actually names the Mormons or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, that somehow it's not about them. Never mind that the movie features a polygamous religion in Utah, and makes reference to Brigham Young.<br /><br />In short, My 5 Wives was a disappointment. I was hoping for Rodney on a roll, but the best I can say for the movie is that Rodney was looking pretty good for a guy who was pushing 80 at the time.

negative

This gem for gore lovers is extremely underrated. It's pure delight and fun! Gratuitous servings of blood, insanity and black humor, which can please even the most demanding lover of the genre. A full exploitation of the almost universal fear of dentists and flawlessly shot. Only for the connoisseurs.

positive

Completely ridiculous "period" film is only a thin excuse for its extensive, graphic depiction of the heroine's affair with "the beast", a monster who supposedly appears every century to rape some women. That's pretty much what he does, and the film's depiction of the beast is really really awful; it's basically a tall guy in a fur suit with a mask and a huge PVC tube for a hard-on that squirts copious amounts of white liquid. For fans of fake animal porn, I guess maybe this is a real turn-on. I was amused, however, by the opening shots of horses having sex in a public square.

negative

Dear Friends and Family,<br /><br />I guess if one teen wants to become biblical with another teen, then that's their eternal damnation - just remember kids, "birth control" doesn't mean "oral sex", I don't care what the honor student says. On the other hand, even if the senator's aid quotes himself as a "bit of a romantic guy", he's still only hitting on a high school girl. If she was my sister, I'd eat this guys kneecaps.<br /><br />Other than that I found out that Mongolians don't kiss the same way the French do and that baseball players named Zoo like delicate undergarments.<br /><br />I think I'd almost rather watch Richie Rich one more time than suffer the indignity of this slip, slap, slop. Thank you, and good night.

negative

I just blew four dollars renting this movie! Why Alliance Atlantis would promote such a poor excuse for a film is beyond me. But even more surprising was the reasonably good reviews that a couple of Canadian newspaper critics gave this film. I'm tired of our media justifying a film simply because it's Canadian and low budget. It's like they expect Canadian films to be lousy, so they give it a good review regardless.<br /><br />Now about the movie: The acting was below average (with the exception of the lead male character, who was actually pretty good). The film quality was poor, which I guess could be expected from the extremely low budget. The script was absolutely horrendous. An example is the story, which revolves around one of the lead characters, a female drug dealer who flirts with one of her clients so that she can recruit him to fix and steal bicycles for her gang, whose only purpose is to randomly destroy SUV's. Supposedly many of her gang members' bicycles are destroyed in these activities (I don't know how she can't afford to just buy new ones, since she is supposed to be this big drug dealing connection from Vancouver to Toronto).<br /><br />Anyway, the point of the story (which isn't revealed until well over halfway through the movie) is that the drug dealer plans to firebomb buildings in the Toronto area to attempt to make houses more affordable - as no one will want to live in the area.<br /><br />- Need I say more.<br /><br />Shame on the Toronto Film Festival for accepting such a film, Telefilm for supporting it, and the Globe and Mail and Georgia Straight newspapers for giving such biased reviews.<br /><br />A film shouldn't get special treatment just because it's Canadian!!!!

negative

Dolph Lundgren stars as a former cop/boxer who searches Boston's kinky scene to find out who killed his brother,who was well thought of in the community, however along the way he learns how his brother enjoyed kinky sex and that a serial killer is to blame. Dolph Lundgren is very good in this movie, in fact on the basis of his performance here, one would forget Lundgren's rise to fame involved action roles. That said the material gives Lundgren nothing to work with, in fact, Lundgren is completely left out to dry in a dreary thriller which is both predictable and incomprehensible. Co-Star Danielle Brett is also good, in fact the film works best when it centers around the chemistry of Lundgren and Brett, indeed had the film taken the time to explore their relationship the film would've been fairly decent. However the movie is lackluster, the action is non-existent, the plot not given enough exploration (Too much boring B.S around Lundgren's investigation of his brother's employer) and the film is needlessly gory and ridiculous. Once again, Lundgren is actually really good (As is newcomer Danielle Brett) but the film just lumbers from one sequence to the next, which makes this movie particularly disappointing. If anything else though, it shows how underrated Lundgren is, as an actor.<br /><br />*1/2 Out Of 4-(Poor)

negative

SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)<br /><br />Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an "episode" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off "danger zone" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the "real" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the "danger zone" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the "cuts" from one take to another, I would imagine).

negative

It was nice to see all the familiar characters again, but the story bothered me. We loved Ariel in the first movie- so why is the second one centered around her daughter? The new characters were annoying and I didn't like the plot of this. Worst of all, Christopher Daniel Barnes didn't come back as the voice of Eric! Disney, please stop remaking classic movies with these shoddy imitations.

negative

A young cat tries to steal back his brothers soul from death but only gets half of it and then has to go adventuring to get the other half... or maybe not. <br /><br />Frankly I'm not sure what happens in this film which is full of very strange, very surreal images some of which parents might find disturbing, (ie.the cats slicing off part of a pig who is traveling with them and the frying it like bacon which all three eat).<br /><br />This is a very strange film that some have likened to Hello Kitty on acid, I think its more like Hello Kitty as done by Dali. (Certainly this is more alive than Destino which was directly based on his work).<br /><br />If your up for a very off beat film that will challenge your perceptions of things then see this movie. Just be ready for some very strange images that will be burned into your memory forever.<br /><br />

positive

this short film trailer is basically about Superman and Batman working together and forming an uneasy alliance.obviously,the two characters have vastly differing views on how to deal with crime and what constitutes punishment.it's a lot of fun to see these two iconic characters try to get along.i won't go int to the storyline here.but i will get into the acting,which is terrific.everyone is well cast.the two actors playing Superman and Batman are well suited to their characters.the same filmmakers that made Batman: Dead End and Grayson also made this short film.of the three,i probably liked this one the least,but i still thought it was well done.for me,World's finest is a 7/10

positive

After viewing "Whipped" at a distributor's screening at the AFM the other night, I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed. The audience was laughing all the way through. Unfortunately, every territory was already sold, so I did not have the opportunity to purchase the film, but I truly believe that it will be a big hit both domestically and over seas. I agree with the comment that "Whipped" should not be pitched as a male "Sex and the City," mainly because unlike "Sex and the City," "Whipped" is a satire about dating that never takes itself too seriously. "Whipped" pokes fun at relationships in a way that most sex comedies wouldn't dare. Also, the film that I screened at the AFM had more of a plot and story than "Swingers," "Clerks," and "Sex and the City" combined. "Whipped" never slowed down for a beat and provided the audience with non-stop comedy. The performances of Amanda Peet and the rest of the cast were all rock solid, which only made the film more impressive considering the budget.

positive

Yes, this is one of the great musical movies I grew up with with such great entertainers as Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly, not to mention the petite and glorious voice of Kathryn Grayson. The music and dancing is superb. I understand Frank took lessons from Kelly; and there is Kelly dancing with Jerry Mouse, which is quite unique for the time. Betty Garrett plays the waitress who falls in love with Sinatra. She is one of Hollywood's great underrated stars. I saw this again on A&E TV and as well have it in my old VCR tapes. Never get tired of these old musicals. Whatever happened to Hollywood??

positive

The events of September 11 2001 do not need extra human interest in the shape of following the training of the rookie fireman or the progress of the two French brothers. In my view it would have been better to leave this out. I think the directors tried too hard, perhaps they felt that the events of the day needed a story as a backdrop. The comment of one of a policemen - "this aint f***ing Disneyworld" is apt.<br /><br />Nevertheless it is compelling viewing for the depiction of the events. The filmakers were in all the right places at the right times, no other footage from the day matches what they shot.

positive

Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.<br /><br />There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.<br /><br />Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.<br /><br />Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.<br /><br />What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.<br /><br />The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this.

negative

*** May contain spoilers. *** <br /><br />If LIVING ON TOKYO TIME were some bold experiment where real-life wanna-be actors were given film parts on the condition that they would be required to take a combination of powerful prescription anti-anxiety, anti-depression, and anti-psychotic medications (this is the classic psych ward combo that renders patients into drooling zombies) all during filming, then this movie would hold far more interest. Or, if the film production was another type of experiment where all of the actors were sleep deprived before and during filming, then TOKYO TIME could be more easily explained.<br /><br />As it is, this film is filled with lifeless, low-energy actors. In the scene where the new husband was sitting on the stairs talking with his sister, it appeared that he was having trouble keeping his eyes open. In almost every scene he speaks his lines sitting down with every part of his body motionless. From beginning to end, his facial expression is best described as "near sleep."<br /><br />Fret not about the actors speaking over each other's lines because these actors can barely finish droning out any lines of dialog. Everyone speaks with a depressing, monotone voice. No laughing. No yelling. No vigor. No one has energy enough to crack a smile. The result: complete and total boredom.<br /><br />And it does not help matters that the direction is simple and amateurish.<br /><br />Avoid this lifeless film at all costs. Better to watch GREENCARD which has a similar plot and has charm and energy. Or, for an unconventional Japanese romance story, check out THE LONG VACATION which has an ample amount of everything LIVING ON TOKYO TIME does not.

negative

I never saw this movie until I bought the tape last year. I was enthralled and entertained. It has all the elements of what I love to see in a Sci-Fi story, in a book or on the screen. There's social commentary, speculation, and a good story.<br /><br />There's something eerie, and amusing, watching a 1936 view of the 'distant future' of the 60s and 70s.<br /><br />I think it's a must see, and not only for Sci-Fiers.

positive

After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.<br /><br />Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.<br /><br />You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.<br /><br />He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.<br /><br />Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.<br /><br />So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter.

positive

I saw this movie in the first couple of weeks it was out, (I don't remember exactly when.) I thought that it was alright, for a Ben Stiller movie. This movie isn't for a person without a good sense of humor. Like most of Ben Stiller's jokes you have to think about them. Or like I said you have a good sense of humor. From a couple of people on this website I saw that people didn't have anything good to say about it and It didn't get a very good rating, But I would have given it a larger one This movie, I thought, was very good and it should have gotten a better rating. Maybe this isn't a movie for you. I'm just giving you another person's opinion.

positive

I heard this film was much more stylistic than the films director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) had directed before, the problem is, it is possibly too stylistic. Basically Jake Green (Jason Statham) is released from prison after seven years in solitary,and within two years he gambles loads of his money. He is ready to seek revenge against the violence-prone casino owner who got Jake sent to prison, Dorothy 'Mr. D' Macha (Ray Liotta). In the process, doctors tell Jake that he has three days left to live as he is dying from a rare blood disease, oh, and Macha puts hit men on him. Loan sharks Zach (Vincent Pastore) and Avi (André Benjamin) are demanding Jake pays their cash back, and do some odd jobs for them. The film is filled with Jake narrating through some flashbacks, and through his last three days before coming to the big revelation about Zach and Avi, and Macha, well, I assume that's what it was. Also starring Terence Maynard as French Paul, Andrew Howard as Billy, Mark Strong as Sorter, Francesca Annis as Lily Walker, Anjela Lauren Smith as Doreen and Elana Binysh as Rachel. The are sequences involving a little bit of animation, repeating lines twice in different perspectives, and changing speeds for moments, and all of these are irritating to the point of confusion and boredom, making it a silly crime drama. Pretty poor!

negative

Disappearance is set in the Mojave desert as Jim (Harry Hamlin) & Patty Henley (Susan Dey) plus their two kids Katie (Basia A'Hern) & Matt (Jeremey Lelliott) along with Ethan (Jamie Croft) a friend of the family are travelling along, they stop at a roadside diner & ask about an old deserted mining town on the map called Weaver. No-one claims to have heard of it but it's definitely there & the family decide to take a detour in order to check it out & take some pictures. Once at the town they take some pictures & have a look around but when it comes time to leave their car won't start & they have to spend the night there. While looking around they find a camcorder videotape which they play only to discover footage of a scared woman saying all her friends have disappeared, the next morning & their car has disappeared as things take a very sinister turn. What is Weaver's secret? Will the Henley's ever leave there alive...<br /><br />Written, co-executive produced & directed by Walter Klenhard I have to say that Disappearance is one of the most frustrating films I have ever watched. For the first 85 minutes it was a pretty good mysterious mix of thriller & horror film but then we are treated to one of the single worst endings ever in motion picture history. The script suggest lots of different things but never elaborates or confirms & I was sitting there genuinely intrigued about what was going on, from the families car mysterious disappearing, the four recent graves, the thing in the abandoned mines, the supernatural sandstorm, the sudden & unexplained disappearance of Ethan & his just as unexplained reappearance, the Sheriff's sinister motives, the compass in the car going crazy, the crashed plane, the townspeople denying Weaver existed & the possible side effects of a neutron bomb being dropped near Weaver in the 40's but they are all tossed out of the window & for all we know could have been totally separate random events. Everything was coming along nicely & was set up for a big twist revelation but none was forthcoming & instead I was treated to the most ambiguous, strange, surreal & downright frustrating ending possible. If nothing else the ending contradicts much of what has gone before & leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. It's almost as if the makers had these great ideas but then didn't know what to do with them & just made the ending up on the spot. I just felt I put so much effort into watching the film which can be pretty slow at times without any sort of reward & in fact the ending felt more like a kick in the teeth or a good two finger salute!<br /><br />Director Klenhard does a reasonable job here, the old ghost town has a certain atmosphere & the large expansive desert locations give a good sense of isolation. It's well made but what were they thinking with that ending? Nothing fits, nothing makes sense & it's just a huge frustrating mess that after sitting through the thing for nearly an hour & a half leaves you confused & wanting to know more. Despite being a horror film there's no blood or gore although there are one or two creepy moments here & there. The film actually reminds of The Hills Have Eyes (2006) remake for large parts as that is what the film is set-up to be before a bizarre ending which does nothing to bring any closure to the film.<br /><br />Technically the film is good with high production values, good special effects, sets, locations & cinematography. Set in America but filmed in South Australia. The acting is fine from a decent cast.<br /><br />Disappearance is a really odd film, for a long time it shapes up to be a neat little horror mystery thriller but it never explains anything which happens & the truly surreal ending just throws up more questions than answers. I really can't see anyone making head nor tail of this, I really can't.

negative

This might be unbelievable, but this movie has grossed $878,138 in Russia! It's shown in almost all cinema theaters and still running! Well, I have no idea why distributors put their eye on this particular uh "movie", which had almost no screening around the world. That's some kind of enigma! Haha! Maybe it was based on the fact that another movie, "Pledge This" with Paris Hilton, which was as well released only DVD almost everywhere, had major screenings in Russia and grossed more than 1mln$. Besides, both movies had a lot of promotion, like there were the banners all over the city, TV commercials and etc. Speaking about movie, I'd say it's dull and absolutely boring. It could be better, really. Even if it has Jessica Simpson.

negative

Even if 99,99% of people that has seen this movie is Brazilian, I'll keep up with the English since it is the language of this website.<br /><br />This movie is a piece of cr*p. Worst acting I have seen for a loooong time. The kids are terrible. Specially the boy. This was the first time I saw someone with less facial expression than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and one single voice tone, like a 5 years-old kid reading in front of the class. How can someone so bad be the main actor of a movie ? The storyline is so shallow my daughter could have done better (she is 3 yrs old). It is so simple it could be written in a napkin and told in 3 minutes.<br /><br />There are only three possibilities for someone enjoy this movie: 1) you are a pre-teen; 2) you have been so brainwashed by Globo's stupidities that you think that anything that has the Globo's seal is awesome; 3) you have a serious brain damage.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs ! A shame to the Brazilian movie scene.

negative

Pecker is another mainstream film by John Waters done on a smaller than Serial Mom. The title character of Pecker has a hobby of taking pictures of anything he sees. It doesn't matter if it's dirty or shocking when he takes pictures. He soon uses the pictures he taken and puts them on display at his work. Pecker live in a semi-normal middle-class family. His dad works at a drinking bar with a claw machine, but doesn't make enough money with a lesbian stripper bar across the street. His mom runs a thrift shop and loves to dress-up poor people. His older sister, Tina, works at a gay bar where her specialty is trade. His younger, Little Chrissy, has a habit of eating sugar, sugar, and nothing but sugary food. His grandmother, Memama, has a small statue of the Virgin Mary and plays ventriloquist with it. He also has 2 friends. On of his friends, Matt is a chronic shoplifter and his girlfriend, Shelley, runs a laundry mat as if she was a dictator. Soon, a tourist from New York buys his pictures and displays them at an art gallery. With the picture comes fame, but the pictures expose the unusual life style of his friends and family's simple life. For an R-rated film, Pecker is sure tamer than most of Waters previous R-rated films and even Pink Flamingos. Another 10 out of 10!

positive

What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.

positive

Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.<br /><br />That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.<br /><br />These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.<br /><br />The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.<br /><br />The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.<br /><br />I heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague.

negative

Yet another British romantic comedy which audiences all over the world seem to have a ravenous appetite for. This feeble effort is an unintentional parody of the genre - all the classic clichéd scenes are here from ridiculously elaborate misunderstandings to running after departing trains to declare one's love. The characters are one-dimensional caricatures save for Love-Hewitt who manages to bring some cohesion to the film. Things threaten to spiral out of control in the plausibility department as the film progresses; our good-natured suspension of belief finally comes crashing down during the preposterous ending. If you're looking for a Bridget Jones, Notting Hill kind of experience you won't find it here.

negative

I had heard some not too good things about this movie and had probably seen the low score here at IMDb and that's why I had avoided it. Today they showed Vanilla Sky on TV and as I had nothing better to do... and as it turned out, I would have had a hard time finding anything better to do. Vanilla Sky is a frightening, sad and touching movie, actually one of the best I've seen in a while. I was surprised by how I was affected watching it. It's hard to explain, but during the movie your feelings towards the characters and your perception of what is going on changes and it's quite an emotional journey. Vanilla Sky really touched me in a way that is very rare for a movie, or any media for that matter.<br /><br />I really recommend everyone to watch this movie. Regardless of what you have heard about it.

positive

If you like original gut wrenching laughter you will like this movie. If you are young or old then you will love this movie, hell even my mom liked it.<br /><br />Great Camp!!!

positive

there is a story, but more essentially, the world of this film begins in chaos and comes to order over the course of ten minutes.<br /><br />it is a celebration of life and an optimistic assertion of objective truth and good. representing along an axis unexplored in previous cinema, this film should be taught in every high school.<br /><br />*CHIASMUS*

positive

Gayniggers from Outer Space is a short foreign film about black, gay aliens who explore the galaxy until they stumble upon Earth. Being gay, their goal is to have a male-only universe in which all people are gay. Hence, when they discover women or "female creatures" live on Earth, they are at first terrified; eventually they decide to eliminate all women on the planet and liberate the male population.<br /><br />An offensive title with a racist, homophobic and sexist storyline, albeit probably intended as a satire, give this film some shock value. However, there's little substance underneath. As another reviewer pointed out, there are few jokes besides the characters' names (eg. ArmInAss); I think I laughed once at one small gay joke. I think I got the point of the film quickly, a satire of bad science fiction, but after that I had had enough; I kept wanting the film to end already (and it is a short film!). Not brilliant or particularly well-written.

negative

I have spent the last week watching John Cassavetes films - starting with 'a woman under the influence' and ending on 'opening night'. I am completely and utterly blown away, in particular by these two films. from the first minute to the last in 'opening night' i was completely and utterly absorbed. i've only experienced it on a few occasions, but the feeling that this film was perfect lasted from about two thirds in, right through till the credits came up. everything about this film, from the way it was shot, the incredible performance of Gena Rowlands, the credits, the opening, the music, the plot, the sense of depth, the pace, the tenderness, the originality, the characters, the deft little moments.... for me, is truly sublime. i couldn't agree more with the previous comment about taking it to a desert island because the sheer depth of this film is something to behold. if your unlucky enough to have a house fire, i guarantee that instead of making a last ditch attempt to rescue that stash of money under your bed, you'll be rescuing your copy of this film instead.

positive

Very smart, sometimes shocking, I just love it. It shoved one more side of David's brilliant talent. He impressed me greatly! David is the best. The movie captivates your attention for every second.

positive

Having first watched the movie at 14, I remember being struck by hearing the word 'govno' (sh*t) for the first time ever on the then-still-Soviet TV (I bet it really was *the* first time in history — anyone wants to add this to trivia section?:)... What an open boldness and freedom, I thought! As years passed, I was more and more impressed with the movie and the incredible acting, but my feelings turned to a kind of mixture of enjoyment from a genuine piece of cinematographic art and a bitter realization of a concept diametrically opposite to my 14-y.o. impression: helplessness. There's an air of inevitable catastrophe looming throughout the movie, of primitive degenerate tide (embodied by Sharikov) sweeping the lives of the finest minds advancing humanity in their areas... It's a great metaphor of Russian revolution in general, inspired by intellectuals ashamed of their superiority and hoping to 'upgrade' the lower classes, only to unleash the power of mediocrity and get swallowed by it... An extremely fine and talented piece, wrapping a truly sad idea in a brilliantly satiric and elegant form. Symbolically enough, the movie itself marked the end of the Soviet movie traditions era before the Hollywood tsunami had knocked them over — for good, it seems, judging by most current Russian movies (most of them labeled 'blockbusters' in prerelease!!! trailers and posters:).<br /><br />Funnily, that 'govno' episode is in no contradiction to Efenstor's comment above re rude language of current generation... From what I've already said it could seem that this might be the movie that showed the way for this, but it was not. A mild word by current standards, it was way too rude back then, and just rude enough to show the true nature of all Sharikovs... BTW, re Efenstor's lament, it is sooo naive to juxtapose being intellectual and using rude lexicon, especially for Russian speakers, where a single cussword could have meanings that take sentences in translation! But I join in regret that ALL the meaning in today's teenager's talk may be expressed by cusswords. I feel that this is the bigger problem than their choice of the medium that's most efficient for the task:) Well, this movie and the book are great food for thought that might change them, or anyone who might have a luxury of watching it.

positive

I was in physical pain watching the eyes of the cast as they participated in this sham. Bad dialogue, worse (worst) acting, lifeless all the way, and the cast knew it. The two preceding movies which this attempted to copy had life, sparkle, and were captivating.

negative

Profanity, stupidity, self-indulgence, and bad acting all join forces for a true tour de force in terrible movie-making. Pesci's attempt to prove My Cousin Vinny was no fluke, shows the opposite instead. He is generally too lightweight and foulmouthed to handle the lead. A true must-miss!

negative

Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, "The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father." To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable.

negative

Ecstasy (1933) (USA 1940) Starring Hedy Lamarr (as Hedy Kiesler)<br /><br />The world's first glimpse of a 19 year-old Hedy Lamarr occurs in the early moments of this 1930's treasure as she sweeps across the screen in an angelic wedding gown. This was to be the start of a legendary career. This was our glorious introduction to the most beautiful woman ever to grace the silver screen.<br /><br />It is Eva's (Lamarr) wedding night and her older husband seems uninterested in her romantic advances. She retreats to the lonely bed and, in a beautiful scene, she fiddles with her wedding ring as the realization of her marital mistake overcomes her. The husband seems more interested in neatness and order than he does in love. Gustav Machaty uses gorgeous camera angles and pristine shot framing to capture Lamarr's considerable talent and beauty. With no words spoken in the early part of the film, she is able to grasp our sympathy, our hearts and our support. It is that combination that prepared the 1930's audiences for what they were about to see as the film unfolded. 'Ecstasy' was considered shocking for its time... Some thought it to be scandalous.<br /><br />She returns home to her father's estate and files for divorce. The next day, she wakes with a complete sense of freedom and happiness. She just has to go outside and feel the freedom of the countryside and fresh air. Eva goes for a horseback ride and happens across a beautiful lake. And in one of the most famous scenes in film history, Hedy Lamarr became the first person to ever appear nude in a major film. Her frolic in the woods and her skinny-dipping adventure in the lake were legendarily scandalous. But the audiences couldn't stay away. As with many of today's movies, the controversy made it a must-see film.<br /><br />Eva's mischievous adventure introduces her to a handsome young man who helps her find her horse, who had run off with her clothes. After an awkward meeting, they eventually fall for each other. Their first romantic rendezvous was almost as controversial as the nude scene, with its blatant waves of eroticism. However, Machaty does beautiful work in these romantic moments. Machaty creates one delightful moment, when Eva literally seems to sink into her new lover, using a gorgeous early camera trick.<br /><br />It cannot be overstated how brave this performance was on Lamarr's part. Many might have presumed it was career suicide. Instead, it gained her worldwide fame and caught the eye Louis B Mayer, who signed her to a contract with MGM. There are some truly erotic moments in this film, even by today's raunchy standards. It is impossible to imagine how they were received in the 1930's. Again, Machaty was very clever with his imagery, leaving a lot to the imagination. But we all understand very well what we are seeing and it is supremely well done.<br /><br />The meeting of Eva's former husband and her current lover is perhaps inevitable. However, the consequences of that meeting are not. The film takes a few unexpected turns in its final act and it all makes for a great story and a lovely debut on the grand stage of movie stardom for Hedy Lamarr.<br /><br />I highly recommend this once controversial, now tame film and urge you to seek it out in its restored form on DVD. It is easily worthwhile, if only for the pleasure of seeing Hedy Lamarr. But the story is compelling too and the direction is ahead of its time. 'Ecstasy' is a memorable early treasure.<br /><br />www.tccandler.com - TC Candler's Movie Reviews!!!

positive

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

negative

How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.<br /><br />Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.<br /><br />It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...<br /><br />It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.<br /><br />It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...<br /><br />And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.

negative

Without being one of my favorites, this is good for being a change of pace... even if only for a few minutes.<br /><br />It all starts with a big fight between Tom, Jerry and Spike (who is renamed "Butch" here). They're all beating each other, but suddenly Spike makes a heroic and admirable decision: he stops the fight and suggests that they all should be friends. So, all of them sign a peace treaty and become friends... which isn't going to last for long.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the three become affectionate, patient and kind to each other. They even save each other when one of them is in danger of life. The relationship goes nothing but excellent, until a very big steak appears and they all become greedy. The three are guilty to return to their usual fights and rivalries.<br /><br />But still... to see Tom, Jerry and Spike as friends is truly a delightful and grateful experience, even if only for a while.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, as a curious fact, two songs from "The Wizard of Oz" are played here in instrumental versions: "We're off to see the Wizard" and "Somewhere over the rainbow".

positive

Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable.

negative

Hearing such praise about this play, I decided to watch it when I stumbled across it on cable. I don't see how this "elivates" women and their "struggles" by focusing on the topic at hand. I guess if you have an interest in stories about women's private parts and how it affects their lives, then this is for you. Otherwise, it's rather dull and boring. If anything, I found it a bit degrading.<br /><br />I inquired with a female friend who also watched this and she thought it was horrible as well. So, it's not just a guy "not getting it".

negative

As someone else has already said here, every scene in this film is gem. Most films are lucky to have one scene that is perfect, but director Jewison hit a home run every time. The cast got just the right take on the excellent script, and in addition, Dick Hyman's musical settings of the opera and the other music made for a perfect match. Hard to imagine how they kept the precise mood going throughout the long production of a film. The comedy is subtle (mostly), and the camera-work mirrors every little emotional inflection of the narrative. Cher is such a comedy natural, Vincent Gardenia (who I know mostly through his Frank Lorenzo role on All in the Family until I saw him in this and then off-Broadway in the 80's)deserved far greater stardom than he ever got, and Aiello's hapless loser are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to giving kudos to this tremendous cast. Has Jewison ever written about this film?<br /><br />Would love to read it. Hard to figure out why the average rating here at IMDb is so low...

positive

Who are these "They"- the actors? the filmmakers? Certainly couldn't be the audience- this is among the most air-puffed productions in existence. It's the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot— TOO much fun, nobody is getting any actual work done, and that almost always makes for a movie that's no fun to watch.<br /><br />Ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character's status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled Bogdanovich; the scenes with the breezy Ms. Stratten are sweet, but have an embarrassing, look-guys-I'm-dating-the-prom-queen feel to them. Ben Gazzara sports his usual cat's-got-canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot, which requires him to pursue Audrey Hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. In the meantime, the budding couple's respective children (nepotism alert: Bogdanovich's daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on 'love' while observing their parents. (Ms. Hepburn, drawing on her dignity, manages to rise above the proceedings- but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself, ostensibly.) Everybody looks great, but so what? It's a movie and we can expect that much, if that's what you're looking for you'd be better off picking up a copy of Vogue.<br /><br />Oh- and it has to be mentioned that Colleen Camp thoroughly annoys, even apart from her singing, which, while competent, is wholly unconvincing... the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. Surely this is NOT what Gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie's title is derived) had in mind; his stage musicals of the 20's may have been slight, but at least they were long on charm. "They All Laughed" tries to coast on its good intentions, but nobody- least of all Peter Bogdanovich - has the good sense to put on the brakes.<br /><br />Due in no small part to the tragic death of Dorothy Stratten, this movie has a special place in the heart of Mr. Bogdanovich- he even bought it back from its producers, then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it didn't prove popular. His rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of Hollywood stories, so there's no joy in criticizing the film... there _is_ real emotional investment in Ms. Stratten's scenes. But "Laughed" is a faint echo of "The Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon" or "What's Up, Doc"- following "Daisy Miller" and "At Long Last Love", it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which P.B. has never emerged.<br /><br />All in all, though, the movie is harmless, only a waste of rental. I want to watch people having a good time, I'll go to the park on a sunny day. For filmic expressions of joy and love, I'll stick to Ernest Lubitsch and Jaques Demy...

negative

Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too.

positive

The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.

negative

I found this film embarrassing to watch. I felt like it was shoving the storyline down my throat as if I couldn't pick up the subtleties I needed a voice over to spell them all out for me constantly.<br /><br />Having a father who IS still an alcoholic, I didn't really feel it was a film about alcoholism as such. Alcoholics, true alcoholics are very lonely people inside, in my opinion of course. They find it hard to communicate, something that the main character had no problem with really, except he DID have a problem saying I love you at one point- which was a bit of a feeble effort at establishing his cold character. He was constantly surrounded with people too!? <br /><br />I felt cheated that at no point were we really alone with the character to really get a sense of his inner loneliness and turmoil. I couldn't connect with the character and felt no link at all considering my father. I felt nothing at all when it had finished, just relief it was over.<br /><br />Kevin McKidd is an okay actor but not a tough guy feature lead! The clockwork orange thing was as subtle as a brick. McKidd was too old for the teen, they should have got three different characters or avoided the teen stage and concentrated more on the adult McKidd.<br /><br />On a good note, I felt the little boy actor was really good at the start of the film!!

negative

Unfortunately, this film has long been unavailable (as other posters have noted), but this is one of the essential dramas of the Great Depression, a lyrical and touching drama of love set in a shanty-town. It features performances by Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young that are just about the finest of their careers, and it's a surpassing example of how the director, Frank Borzage, was able to create an almost fairy-tale aura around elements of poverty, crime, and horrendous social inequity, which just proves that how truly romantic and spiritual his talents were. This film shows how love survives amidst squalor and desperate need, and it is totally life-affirming. This is a real masterpiece of the period, and is a movie that deserves to be more widely known.

positive

What a movie! I never imagined Richard Attenborough could have such a movie in him. Gandhi has always left me indifferent, apart from Ben Kingsley's performance, and I never considered Attenborough a particularly good filmmaker. But Cry Freedom held my interest like few movies have in recent times. It's an exciting, mesmerizing political movie with great performances by Kevin Kline and a young Denzel Washington.<br /><br />Kline plays Donald Woods, a South Africa newspaper editor who befriends the civil rights activist Steve Biko. It starts as a difficult friendship, for Woods sees Biko as a black supremacist preaching hatred against whites. But Biko, with his kind words, upbeat attitude and complete transparency, wins over Woods and introduces him to a reality about Apartheid that Woods knew nothing about.<br /><br />Biko is a decent, law-abiding citizen who altruistically stands up against all prejudice and the system that keeps down his people. One night, coming from an illegal meeting, he's arrested and beaten to death. The authorities try to hush up the matter because Biko has become a huge personality in South Africa. But through the efforts of Woods the truth comes out. But what should be a triumph only becomes a nightmare as Woods and his family become targets for the secret police.<br /><br />This movie has an interesting structure. It has in fact two narratives: first it narrates the life and death of Biko. It's an amazing first half, completely dominated by the charisma of Washington in what may be his greatest performance yet.<br /><br />The second half, no less interesting, narrates Woods attempt to escape from South Africa to publish a book about Biko. Woods has become an enemy of state, a banned person, which means he can't meet people or leave his country. Plus he's constantly spied by the police. Kevin Kline gives a great performance in this second half too.<br /><br />Although the first half is quite straightforward, the second does interesting things with editing, by giving flashbacks of Biko and of events that show the repression against the black South Africans. Some may argue this is to make it more interesting, but for me the second half just as captivating, as Woods and his family devise a bold plan to escape South Africa.<br /><br />The last minutes were so heartbreaking I was in tears. George Fenton and Jonas Gwangwa's score certainly had something to do with it. Although I've never been much of a fan of Fenton (cannot stand his Gandhi score), I do think the score for Cry Freedom is one of the most beautiful ever composed for cinema. The movie, thanks to the music married to the powerful images, at times reached incredible peaks of emotion.<br /><br />Cry Freedom is definitely not a movie just to watch because of Denzel Washington. This is a movie to be cherished in its entirety. Acting, writing, music, editing, cinematography come together in a perfect synthesis to create an ode to the power of the human spirit. This movie deserve a place alongside movies like The Pianist, Life Is beautiful and The Shawshank Redemption.

positive

I enjoyed this movie and I had very low expectation due to all the negative reviews I read before going. I went because I was curious as to what all this fuss was about because some of the postings were so angry with this movie and with the Koreans. Oh and it's from Korea which has put out some of my favorite movies. I liked Host but not my absolute favorite. Some of my favorite sci-fi /fantasy movies so you can have a sense of my taste: Mirrormask, Stardust, Serenity, Gattaca, Willow, Matrix, Resident Evil series, LOTR, Stargate, Dark City.<br /><br />It wasn't confusing like everyone said and the monsters looked good and the battles great. There are some holes in the story but didn't really matter. I sort of tune out stuff like that and stopped asking why long time ago when I see summer blockbusters. The Korean legend was interesting, the reincarnation stuff was different, and I thought the main characters suspiciously dressed like Korean actors in other shows. Ethan's(Behr)hair looked so Asian.<br /><br />Yes, it could be better and I hope in the future that Korea, with its unusual quirky sense of life, intense emotions, and unexpected humor, can bring some diversity to the blockbuster genre. Maybe a combination of Host and Dragon Wars in the future?

positive

This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or "artistic film-making"... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of "arthouse" films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be "very artistic" and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it.

negative

When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth "several thousand million years ago." In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call "Radium X" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.<br /><br />Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10

negative

EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can "blip" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the "faster" humans.<br /><br />An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed "She" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by "mistake", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who "breathe the foul air" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are "frogs".<br /><br />From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and "quaint". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be "beamed up" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.<br /><br />The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has "given up" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste?

negative

Something that really does not go down right with Al Gore (and his supporters)'s theory is the whole thing about "concensus".<br /><br />If there were such a consensus, why is it that the "believers" in the almighty global warming feel the irrepressible need to try and bully anyone who questions them.<br /><br />Why is it that anyone who does not toe the line on global warming is met with smug accusations of being either stupid or on the payroll of the oil companies (apparently being a professional global warming researcher does not mean you're on anyone's payroll in that wondrous world...) Why is there such a need to tell everyone how the whole question is settled, when it is the very nature of science to honestly question assumptions? For some ideas on the answer to those questions, read Prey by the well-know oil-stooge Michael Crichton... oh wait, he is rich and not on the payroll of the oil companies. He just took a huge career risk in not toeing the line of the Greens and other Kyoto worshippers and told the truth as he researched it. By the way did you know that abiding to the Kyoto protocol would result in almost no lowering of temperatures, according to its own backers? Just a few questions that Al Gore made sure to stay away from lest he not get every penny of the environmental lobby in case he decides to run again.<br /><br />So who's a stooge..?

negative

I found this movie to be very well-paced. The premise is quite imaginative, and as a viewer I was pulled along as the characters developed. The pacing is done very well for those that like to think--enough is kept hidden from the viewer early on, and questions keep arising which are later answered, producing a well-thought out and very satisfying film, both cerebrally and from an action standpoint.<br /><br />It seems some people were looking for a non-stop roller-coaster ride with this film--one of those that comes charging out of the gate. This would be more analogous to one of those coasters that first takes you slowly up the hill--creating a wonderful sense of anticipation--and is ultimately, in my mind, more fulfilling for the foundation initially laid.<br /><br />Excellent film.

positive

Becky Harris plays the female shopper whose misfortune it is to be in the store at the wrong time and obviously ONLY purpose to be in this film is to supply a reason to wear out remote controls! Miss Harris seems to me to be in her fifties or older when she first comes on the scene. Once the red haired thug is done with her it becomes apparent that this is no AARP queen. If these are not some of the finest assets ever displayed on celluloid, I want someone to clue me in. Absolutely breathtaking in my opinion and I literally wore out my VHS copy capturing her charms. I would like to know if this movie is available on DVD.<br /><br />The rest of this movie really is not worthy of mention. I was hoping to see something fairly convincing and intelligent, however I was disappointed on both counts. God Bless Becky Harris!

negative

Although a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. Lucky me.<br /><br />The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt. Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would. They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. so let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember).<br /><br />Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed. The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it. Anyway. I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it.<br /><br />What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades. And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that?<br /><br />They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves. And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it. Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels. And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Really? Who think up this crap.<br /><br />I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you time.

negative

In Bridgeport, the deranged high school teacher Richard Fenton (Johnathon Schaech) is obsessed by the teenager student Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow); she witnesses him murder her family to stay with her, but Richard is arrested and sent to prison for life. Three years later, the traumatized Donna is feeling better but is still under psychological treatment and taking pills. On her prom night, she goes with her boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and two couples of friends to the Pacific Grad Hotel for the party. But the psychopath Richard has escaped from prison and is lodged in the same floor in the hotel chasing Donna, stabbing her friends and staff of the hotel that cross his path.<br /><br />The forgettable slash "Prom Night" is a collection of clichés with a total lack of originality. The stupid story is shallow and silly, with a bad acting of Johnathon Schaech in the role of an insane killer. The predictable screenplay is amazing since it is possible to foresee what is going to happen in the next scenes. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Morte Convida Para Dançar" ("The Death Invites to Dance")

negative

I didn't know it was possible to release a movie this bad. The labeling sounded so promising, but you would think that with a cast of 20, at least one of them would be able to act. My wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. She made a wise decision.

negative

Well, the big money machine has done it again! Disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the Disney moniker. Why is it that I continue to look forward to these "sequels" which make Don Bluth on a bad day look like Leonardo DaVinci? Cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice!) Doesn't one of the most endearing Disney creations at least deserve a linear story? Of these three, only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that I would expect. The music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. Why does everything have to be updated? You know, the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness, so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style? Gee, I can't wait for a sequel to Sleeping Beauty. Instead of music based on the themes of Tchaikovsky, we'll get music inspired by Britney Spears!!! So Disney, if you're listening, remember we're not all indiscriminate children out here. How about throwing a bone or two to the fans who've been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap?

negative

THis was a hilarious movie and I would see it again and again. It isn't a movie for someone who doesn't have a fun sense of a humor, but for people who enoy comedy like Chris Rock its a perfect movie in my opinion. It is really funnny

positive

This is simply the most astonishing movie you will ever see. I thought it was just another documentary, but it really is something else. It doesn't try to teach you anything, it shows you how life works in nature.<br /><br />I won't talk about the quality of the pictures, because you obviously know from other comments it is unmatched.<br /><br />Earth is funny, tense and sad. It can make you laugh, it can make you cry. Sometimes both at the same time. This is the first movie that made me cry, not because you feel sorry for the animals, but because you come to realise how fragile our planet is and what treasure we were blessed with, yet we don't appreciate it one bit.<br /><br />This movie should be shown obligatory in schools. It is the most wonderful film you will ever see, so go and see it. Who knows, maybe it is the last time we might see our planet like this...<br /><br />10/10, but I would easily rate it more if it were possible.

positive

Oscar-caliber performance by Peter Falk in an Oscar-caliber-written role. I loved the nuanced, balanced exploration of a long-time marriage - how often do we get that in films, where usually the movie ends when boy & girl get together? This is a movie for adults, a complex view through the eyes of all parties - husband, wife, son - how each have adapted to each other in the past and grow during the story. On top of that, it gave me about 10 major belly laughs, and I'm one of those people who usually sits unamused when the rest of an audience is laughing. This was one of the few truly funny movies I've seen. Great, original jokes.

positive

I watch this movie all the time. I've watched it with family ages 3 to 87, and everyone in between; They all loved it. It really shows the true scenes a dog has, and the love and loyalty you get from a pet. Just beautiful.<br /><br />It's great for thoes who love comedy movies, the tear-jerker movies, or even just pets.<br /><br />The music is wonderful, the animals spectacular, the scenes truly thought out, and the characters perfect. What I liked about the characters is the true and nicely mixed personalities: Shadow (The oldest, a Golden Retriever) He's the wise one, filled with the wisdom and mindset of any dog, Chance (the American Bulldog puppy) is basically a puppy with a witty side, the comical character; And Sassy (The Hymilayan cat) She's the real cat who shows what a real cat will do for their owner, the real girly one.

positive

This movie should not be compared to "The Sting", or other caper/heist/con game films. What makes it such a great movie experience is what it has to say about relationships, deceit and trust. It's also a fairly cutting critique of psychiatry, given that the female protagonist is a shrink who is so easily deceived and then acts out in such a primitive manner in the finale. Has Mr Mamet had an unfortunate experience in therapy? Highly, hugely recommended!

positive

I guess it's Jack's great empathic ability that makes him the powerful performer that he is, but empathy comes at a price like all things-when he's surrounded by mediocrity he instinctively lowers the standard and becomes one with it. He is a joke as a mafia-hit-man(also because the part doesn't suit him one bit, him being so extroverted)and just grazing avoids making a fool of himself in this.Kathleen Turner had a much tooooo long career just by being tall and blonde, because her acting ability is limited to that thing she does with her eyes, when she opens them wide which she's convinced is sooooo damn sexy and Anjelica Huston is the absolute same(granted interesting) in everything, just like Robert Loggia. <br /><br />The movie is a lame draft(and this will be the only mention of the rag they call script) of a gangster-movie, with a cast that was probably only interested to get to the after-party faster(they certainly gathered the party-going elite in this). What, did they shoot it in 1 day?-cause that would be the only explanation.

negative

The effect achieved in this story about a psychiatrist who becomes involved with con artists is so mannered that I have to assume that that was the desired intent. The sets are artificial and at no time did I not feel that I was watching a movie. It seemed like the actors were just reading their lines, rather than responding to one another. While the film has elements of early film noir (except that it is in color) the approach is so exaggerated that I almost have to conclude that it is a parody of the genre.<br /><br />Given that the presentation had no appeal to me, I was at least expecting an engaging story. Usually I am pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to stories with plot twists, but you could see what was coming here within the first fifteen minutes. By the time of the, "Gee, I forgot the $80,000," moment, I thought to myself that this thing is truly ridiculous. For a psychiatrist with stated experience in gambling addictions to behave so stupidly is beyond belief. If at any stage she had behaved like a normal intelligent person, the whole story would have fallen apart.<br /><br />This wooden production left me cold.

negative

Deeply humorous yet honest comedy about a bunch of grownups (Bill Paxton, Julie Warner, Kevin Pollak, Elizabeth Perkins, Vincent Spano, Matt Craven, and Diane Lane) who are invited back to spend a week to Tomawka, a camp in (Ontario) Canada by their former consuelor (Alan Arkin). Writer/director Mike Binder drew upon his experience at the same camp as the main source of creating a gentle and understanding yarn that makes sense. Also, the movie has plenty of funny moments, some of which are completely bizarre like my favorite, the one involves using masking tape. Newton Thomas Sigel ("The Usual Suspects", "Three Kings") provides the film with some impressive shots of the Canadian wilderness. Among the cast, Sam Raimi, director of "THE EVIL DEAD" films and "The Gift", appears here as Arkin's bumbling right-hand man. One more thing, this film reassured me that a camp doesn't have to be a site of bloody murders.

positive

"Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey" is one of those wonderful old movies about house pets. Deserves a place among the great movies of its genre and even the cinema world in general, together with other animal movies like "Old Yeller", "Napoleon", "Fluke" and "Air Bud". This means it is more than just a movie about pets.<br /><br />Can this possibly be just a "remake"? It is too good to be a "remake"! I know this one by heart, since my early teen years (when I was 12).<br /><br />It's a family movie to treasure. It's emotional, thrilling, adventurous, exciting, entertaining, humorous, charming, sweet, nostalgic, beautiful, heartwarming and sometimes dramatic. It's one of those movies to put a smile on the faces of those who appreciate this kind of films.<br /><br />This movie does not lack qualities. It has a well thought story, enjoyable characters, excellent and relaxing instrumental soundtrack, dazzling sceneries/landscapes of the magnificent Sierra mountains (in Oregon). Speaking of the vistas, it's not all mountains: forests, trees, rivers, waterfalls, sunsets... in conclusion, all of pure nature's wonders - truly a full panorama. <br /><br />The main human characters are nice, well developed and well portrayed by respective actors. Robert Hays is awesome as the kind-hearted dad, Bob Seaver. Kim Greist is good as Laura Burnford. Veronica Lauren is equally good as Hope. Kevin Chevalia is conventional as the youngest and cute brother Jamie (his appearance actually reminds me very much of Kevin Corcoran in "Old Yeller"). Benj Thall is great as Peter Burnford.<br /><br />When it comes to our quadruped pals, Shadow is my favorite. Shadow is the loyal, wise, mature, beautiful, caring and loving old Golden Retriever (brilliantly voiced by Don Ameche). Chance, the American Bulldog, is the opposite of Shadow. He is carefree, silly, impatient, anxious, clumsy, hilarious and loves to play (voiced by the talented Michael J. Fox). Chance just can't stand still. Sassy is the epitome of cats's image: elegant, independent, very confident and self-proud, with a typical cat attitude but with a certain feline charm. Sassy is a Seal Point Himalayan cat, one of the most beautiful cat breeds. Sassy is voiced by Sally Field, who also does a good job.<br /><br />Our four-legged friends are, themselves, great "actors" by nature: Ben as Shadow, Rattler as Chance and Tiki as Sassy.<br /><br />It's an underrated movie, but a classic by its own right. Its sequel is clearly inferior.<br /><br />This should definitely be on Top 250.

positive

A masterpiece.<br /><br />Thus it is, possibly, not for everyone.<br /><br />The camera work, acting, directing and everything else is unique, original, superb in every way - and very different from the trash we are sadly used to getting.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix creates a deep, believable and intriguing Esther Kahn. As everything else in this film, her acting is unique - it is completely her own - neither "British" nor "American" nor anything else I have ever seen. There is something mesmerizing about it.<br /><br />The lengthy, unbroken, natural shots are wonderful, reminding us that we have become too accustomed to a few restricted ways of shooting and editing.

positive

I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination.

negative

Jake Speed is a film that lacks one thing – a charismatic lead. Unfortunately that's something that really taints the entire movie and it's a shame because at heart it is an enjoyable action movie with a witty enough script and an interesting, if derivative, premise. Although it's genesis probably can be traced back to the success of the Indiana Jones trilogy – the film actually plays a little more like 'Romancing the Stone' albeit in reverse. It's not an author of romantic adventure fiction being led on an adventure by a character very much like one of her creations it is an adventure fiction character (who happens to chronicle his own adventures) leading an ordinary woman on one of his adventures.<br /><br />When a young woman goes missing in Paris, her sister Margaret (played by the appealing Karin Kopins) gets embroiled with pulp hero Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford) and his sidekick Dennis (Dennis Christopher) who both turn out to be real and very flawed individuals in an adventure that takes them into the heart of a civil war torn African state and ultimately into the clutches of two brothers the deliciously evil Sid (John Hurt) and his ridiculously camp sibling Maurice (Roy London). That's the plot – it's not labyrinthine and it's not complicated but the story that it tells doesn't require great depth.<br /><br />The action sequences are appealing to begin with and it's certainly true that the heroic trio are put through their paces (whether caught in battles between government and rebel forces or being dropped into a pit full of lions) and there are certainly some quite funny lines. However the film does seem to struggle to find an ending and unfortunately the action sequences that are quite appealing to begin with go nowhere and ultimately become a bit bland and irksome. This, however, may not have been such an issue if it was possible to like Jake Speed but due to Wayne Crawford's performance it becomes harder to really care what happens. Now I don't know if he was stretching himself a little thin as he was also the producer and writer of the movie or whether he's simply not a good actor (as I haven't seen him in much else) but he never really convinces as a roguish mixture of Doc Savage, Indiana Jones and Jack Colton.<br /><br />This is a shame because most of the other characters play their roles well – Karen Kopins is funny and convincing and her character shares some nice banter with Jake (unfortunately it never convinces). Dennis Christopher is perfect as the archetypal sidekick and John Hurt plays the part with camp relish – almost as if he were in a sixties episode of Batman. He strides about his few scenes growling in a ridiculous cockney accent putting in a performance that almost belongs in another film. Sid is no Moriarty (he is presented as Jake's nemesis from a number of his previous adventures / books) but he is always fun to watch.<br /><br />Jake Speed tries to channel the same fun B movie spirit as 'Night of the Comet' (a film produced by Crawford a few years beforehand) and almost succeeds but misses – which is a shame because Jake would have been good to watch in a few more adventures and may have been served better by a television series.<br /><br />I would recommend this out of curiosity appeal but ultimately it leaves a bitter taste because most of the elements were there to make something genuinely good.

positive

A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***. <br /><br />I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, do you like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money." <br /><br />Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.<br /><br />This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. <br /><br />The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials. <br /><br />This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie.

negative

Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.<br /><br />Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.<br /><br />Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!<br /><br />ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!

negative

Like too many recent British films, this one takes a great cast and gives them a flimsy, cliched script to work with. The performances save it from total disgrace, and it has some charm but it certainly didn't make me laugh. Where are all the great British writers hiding?

negative

Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!

negative

As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this!

negative

As the front cover says "The hamlet of our time, for our time".<br /><br />I had to study this filmed version of Hamlet directly after watching Keneth Branagh's version and it was truly a disappointing experience.<br /><br />This version takes a different approach to several aspects of the play including sexuality; one very VERY homosexual Osric and an interesting interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia. I think for the time (60's) this was a very well done version of Hamlet but cannot compare to Branagh's complete version.<br /><br />just a note... I found the video at my local video store (in Australia) and I'm actually looking for a Keneth Branagh DVD to buy if such a thing even exists. If anyone knows of one please tell me.

negative

This wonderful little film has all of the elements that made the Spaghetti Western so exciting and fun: GREAT music (by one of the few..if not the only..female composer to work in the genre, Nora Orlandi), EXCITING action sequences (and very vicious ones for the day!), and BEAUTIFUL scenery and sets (all in Almeria, Spain, of course). It also has a very good story with a nice tragic romance edge to it. The actors do marvelous jobs--with truly standout performances from Lawrence Dobkin and Rosalba Neri (in the most vital role for a female in a Spaghetti Western..outside of Cardinale in Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West"). Without posting any spoilers, let me just say that this movie contains one of the best endings of any film I have EVER seen!

positive

The movie "Frailty" is actually more of a psychological thriller than it is a horror film. It has all the trappings of a horror film but this it is not. "Frailty" is a film about perceptions of religion and realizing the differences between right and wrong.<br /><br />In "Frailty", a middle-aged father (Bill Paxton) and his two sons claim to be doing the work of God. It turns out that they are a trio of notorious serial killers called "God's Hands". We watch the father kill the "demons" in some rather brutal ways while convincing his sons and himself that they are doing the work God and that what they are doing is right. He claims that he received a message from an angel who gave him specific instructions to eliminate the demons living here on earth. God has given him a list of names and in return for his "services"; he and his sons will be given protection, which basically means the police will never be able to capture them. We see all of this unfold in front of us in a very disturbing manner. But what is really disturbing about it all is the effect that it has on the two sons, particularly the oldest son, Adam. Adam himself seriously doubts the existence of a supreme being, that is until his father and a week in the cellar changes all of that. He knows that his father has obviously lost his mind and is pretty sure the same is happening to his younger brother, Fenton. Fenton, the other half of this puzzle, takes everything in as if it were his own religion. He seems trapped in his father's world of God and demons. I suppose this is because he's so young and easily impressionable. But everything that happens to these three is rather convincing, in fact, TOO convincing. <br /><br />The events that occur in the film can be looked upon as a vivid hallucination that is being experienced by the three main characters. I say this because they each react to the situation in different ways and at one point in the film they each claim to see God. Dad first sees the murders as his mission. His "mission" eventually consumes him and quickly turns into an obsession with eradicating demons. In fact, his hallucination is the primary one. His "orders" and the list of names he receives are all a part of this hallucination. Watch the scene where Dad finds the ax in a barn to figure out where I am coming from. Fenton, the younger son, is easily impressed by all of this talk of demons and destruction. Since he is so young, it's easy for him to fall into his father's trap. Adam, on the other is very skeptical towards his father's actions. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** <br /><br />In a way, the hallucination ends when Dad is killed towards the end of the movie. (I will not say how or under what circumstances). But I will say that it is not pleasant. After his death, it fast-forwards to the present day. (The story is being told through flashbacks, as seen through the eyes of the oldest son Adam). In actuality, it is Fenton that is telling the story, not Adam as originally believed. The story is being told the way he perceived it, through his actions and his brother's actions. Fenton has gone insane and is continuing what his father started by luring the FBI agent into his trap.<br /><br />Since religion is a major theme in this movie, the film also plays on how easy it is for religion to be misinterpreted by those that do not have a full understanding of it. Before Dad discovered his newfound mission, he himself did not have a clear understanding of religion nor did he fully believe in a supreme being. His sons Fenton and Adam often sang innocent little children's church hymns but yet probably did not have a clear understanding of what the lyrics meant. After the revelation of Dad's newfound mission, they both took off in separate directions - Adam remained in doubt of there being a supreme being while Fenton was gradually sucked into his father's madness. <br /><br />A very good thriller that will creep the heck out of you, do not watch it alone.

positive

As shallow as it may sound, I actually delayed my viewing of "The Barbarians" several times just because the VHS cover (as well as the picture image displayed here on the website) looks so incredibly gay! By now I wish I had watched it earlier because the movie isn't so much gay…. just trashy, cheesy, campy and enormously fun! It's almost unbelievable that Ruggero Deodato, director of "Cannibal Holocaust" of all people, was the man responsible for this comical cash-in on the contemporary popular Sword & Sandal fantasy flicks, particularly Schwarzenegger's Conan movies. The film opens with a terrific 'once-upon-a-time' type of off-screen narrator, introducing us to the Ragneks. Their founder once traded an entire mountain of pure gold for just one magically powerful ruby that would allow them to travel in freedom and access every country as entertainers. In other words, the Ragneks are a bunch of traveling circus freaks! Their happiness abruptly comes to end when the greedy Kadar kidnaps the Ragneks' beautiful queen Canary and continuously attempts to discover the whereabouts of the ruby. Meanwhile, and as some sort of amusing waste of time, the two orphan twin-brothers Gore and Kutchek are trained to become muscled warriors and they're unwarily prepared to fight each other to the death. Instead of that, however, they escape and develop a plan to free their queen. Actually, the plot isn't half as bad as I initially feared, but still the most fun is provided by the beefcake brothers' on screen chemistry, the crazily inept dialogs and of course the utterly cheesy fantasy-monsters, like a dragon with adorably cute eyes, some kind of werewolf creature and zombies that randomly appear to pop out of the swamp. The soundtrack and make-up effects are great and our almighty director Deodato maintains a terrifically fast pace. The Barbarian Brother's acting capacities are much better than I anticipated, apart from the fact that one of them constantly produces gross belching sounds. The supportive cast is splendid as well. Eva La Rue never looked more beautiful as the witty savage girl Cara, Virginia Bryant is indeed bewitching like Richard Lynch states on several occasions and the lovely Sheeba Alahani makes her first and only appearance on film as a vicious sorceress with a donut-shaped hair style (I kid you not!). Last but not least, "The Barbarians" stars everybody's favorite Eyes in the Hills creep Michael Berryman as the appropriately named Dirtmaster. I know the displayed picture looks gayer than a promotional campaign for the musical version about the rise and fall of the Village People, but "The Barbarians" really is a must-see Italian exploitation highlight.

positive

I agree that Capital City should be on DVD. I watched this show only by accident in 1994 and fell in love with Rolf Saxon as Hudson Talbot. It was nice to see Americans who work abroad in London in the financial industry for a change. I loved Rolf in this role and loved every other role that he has been in. I can't believe the show only lasted 13 episodes. I liked William Armstrong as Hudson's flamboyant charming friend in the series. When they aired this show in the New York City area, it was always late at night or at off times. The show is less than an hour long. I felt this show should have gone on longer but the casting changes in the second season really made the show a little less interesting. I didn't care for Sylvia but missed the actress, Julia Phillips-Lane in the previous season. I felt this show took chances and often it worked. It showed Americans who loved and chose to live in London. The American characters were not arrogant or tried to outdo their British counterparts. I also liked the fact that they had tried to internationalize the cast rather than make them all British. I liked watching Julia Ormond in an early role. I felt this show should have lasted longer. I felt at times that the previews lasted as long as the show in less than an hour. They could have transferred the cast to New York City and it would have been a hit in America.

positive

I'm 47 years old and I've spent as much of my life as I can remember, a fan of horror and sci-fi films. Be they silent, black and white, no budget or big budget, there are very few of them that I can't find something to like about. That said, I'll give this movie credit for good gore and creature effects but that's all. This is a case of effects over story. Truth is we live in a time where there is very little left that hasn't been seen in a horror film. Therefor for a film of any kind to really entertain it must have a good, original story. A good story can overcome poor effects and bad acting but a bad story with good acting and good effects is still a bad movie. This movie doesn't even have good acting, only good effects. So unless you can only about the gore, pass this one up.

negative

In some ways, The Wrath of Kriemhild surpasses Siegfried's Death, but it also loses some of that film's greatness. The plot of this one is more cohesive than the first, which is quite amazing. The second half of the actual poem is a lot sloppier and a lot harder to tread through, until, that is, you get to the climactic battle scenes; only the Iliad's are better. Lang and Harbou embellished the Huns. The poet-compiler of the Nibelungenlied didn't know a Hun from his right ball, and as a result they are, more or less, the same as the Burgundians in custom. For example, although the poet clearly describes Etzel as a heathen (which is Kriemhild's main concern as Rudiger tries to persuade her to marry him), when she gets to Hunland, the first thing she does is go to mass. The Huns here are clearly heathens; they're almost like caveman. The depiction of them is hilarious, especially Verbal, the jester, who has two marvelous scenes. Etzel's character has been given more weight. He is much more formidable. All he does is bemoan his fate in the original poem. Lang and Harbou are masterful at building suspense, especially at the banquet scene, which is intercut with Verbal's second performance to an amazing effect. However, as is the nature of this half of the poem, the film's amazing technical accomplishments are missing in this one, for the most part, except for a dazzling sequence where Etzel's hall burns down with the Nibelungs inside. The one thing I do have to object to is the way Harbou changes the ending. SPOILERS: in the poem, after Hildebrand captures Hagen and Gunther, they are imprisoned. Kriemhild visits Hagen in his cell and demands that he reveal where he has hidden the horde. He refuses and she herself decapitates her brother. When Hagen still refuses, she decapitates him. Hildebrand (or possibly Dietrich) is so disgusted that a woman would presume to murder a great warrior that he, in turn, decapitates her, calling her a "Devil Woman". Etzel, who is much weaker in the poem than he is here, says something silly like: "Ah me!" I can understand why they would want to keep a unity of time and place as Hildebrand brings them from the castle; to retain the prison settings of the two deaths would make the film very anticlimactic. I also understand why they didn't have Hildebrand kill Kriemhild: his character is much reduced here; his name is only mentioned once. But, to have Kriemhild kill herself, adopting Brynhild's death from the Icelandic sources, is just catering to the audience instead of challenging them. The point of the poem is that Kriemhild's wrath goes far beyond it should into the realm of pure evil. Here, we simply have her die for her lost love. It's not as interesting.

positive

I absolutely loved this show. I watched it from the time it first aired in the late 90's to the very last episode. In my honest opinion it was a wonderful family drama that is so rare these days. Definitely a show you could watch with a friend or your children. Yes things have changed a bit with Jo since we last saw her in the books, but it's still compelling with great stories and good lessons. The actress that portrays Jo Bhaer (Michelle Burke) does a wonderful job as does as the actor who plays Nick Riley (Spencer Rochfort) Throughout the series we get to see the developing romance between Jo and Nick as well as the daily stories and lessons the kids and students learn. I recommend this show to anyone.

positive

Che: Part One was a fascinating experiment, which did not only tell a very interesting story, but it also tried to do something different with the "biopic" genre.Che: Part Two is the excellent culmination of this experiment.<br /><br />This movie offers all of the same attributes from the first one, from the extraordinary performances (specially from Benicio del Toro) to Steven Soderbergh's brilliant direction, without forgetting its intention of breaking with the conventional rules from the biopics.That is what I admire from Soderbergh's experiments...they always try to do something different and unusual, and they succeed most of the times.<br /><br />The final message from this film is perfect, and it includes everything we have been told about Che Guervara's life.The only fail I found on Che: Part Two is that a few parts felt a bit irrelevant.<br /><br />In summary, I give Che: Part Two a very enthusiastic recommendation because, as the first one, it is a brave and fascinating experiment which challenges the spectator and leaves us thinking.

positive

Noni Hazlehurst, Colin Friels, Alice Garner, Chrissie Amphlett and Michael Caton- what more could you ask for? Monkey Grip based on the prize winning novel of the same name explores Nora (Hazlehurst, a single mother falling for a heroin addict Jobe (Friels). A simple story is made truly extraordinary through the all round magnificent acting (in particular Noni Hazlehurst) and nice use of the small budget. The only flaw is (if you can pick it up) is that the story is set in Melbourne, although for budget reasons, the film was mainly shot in Sydney, so as a result, in a few scenes you see trams (Melbourne scenes) and then a Carlton post office (Sydney scenes). Other than that, "Monkey Grip" is a must see (excuse the clique, but it is) at least for an award winning performance from former "Play School" and "Better Homes & Gardens" presenter Noni Hazlehurst.<br /><br />10/10

positive

I stopped by BB and picked up 4 zombie flicks to watch over the weekend. Now, I understand that the effects will be cheesy, the acting will be sub-par, and the sets will be suspect. So I'm not expecting much. But it should at least have a story. Stories don't cost a thing except time.....apparently, they didn't have any time either.<br /><br />"Zombie Nation" had 5 zombies that appeared near the end of the movie that all looked like new wave hookers. The picture of the zombie on the front cover NEVER appears in the movie. It was absolutely agonizing to watch and had nothing to offer the genre.<br /><br />The running time is only 81 minutes but it felt like 2 hours. According to my wife (who could only hear the movie since she was on the computer in another room), it sounded like zombie porn....which if you think about, sounds kinda gross.....but it wasn't even that good.<br /><br />The only suggestion I can make is that maybe the writer tried to do too many things and ended up with an incoherent mess.<br /><br />It ended up being a free rental and I still feel ripped off. I rated it a 1 out of 10 because IMDb won't allow me to use decimals.

negative

The story of Ned Kelly has been enshrouded in myth and exaggeration for time out of hand, and this film is no exception. What ensures Ned Kelly has a permanent place in history is the effort he went to in order to even the odds against the policemen hunting him. During several battles, he marched out wearing plates of beaten iron, off which the bullets available to police at the time would harmlessly bounce. Indeed, it is only because there were a few bright sparks among the Victorian police who noticed he hadn't plated up his legs that he was captured and hanged. The story has been told in schools and histories of Australia for so long that some permutations of the story have, ironically, become boring. The more the stories try to portray Kelly as some inhuman or superhuman monster, the less people pay attention.<br /><br />Which is where this adaptation of Our Sunshine, a novel about the Kelly legend, excels. Rather than attempting to portray a Ned Kelly who is as unfeeling as the armour he wore, the film quickly establishes him as a human being. Indeed, the reversal of the popular legend, showing the corruption of the Victorian police and the untenable situation of the colonists, goes a long way to make this film stand out from the crowd. Here, Ned Kelly is simply a human being living in a time and place where in order to be convicted of murder, one simply had to be the nearest person to the corpse when a policeman found it. No, I am not making that up. About the only area where the film errs is by exaggerating the Irish versus English mentality of the battles. While the Kelly gang were distinctly Irish, Australia has long been a place where peoples of wildly varied ethnicities have mixed together almost seamlessly (a scene with some Chinese migrants highlights this).<br /><br />Heath Ledger does an amazing job of impersonating Australia's most notorious outlaw. It is only because of the fame he has found in other films that the audience is aware they are watching Ledger and not Kelly himself. Orlando Bloom has finally found a role in which he doesn't look completely lost without his bow, and Geoffrey Rush's appearance as the leader of the police contingent at Glenrowan goes to show why he is one of the most revered actors in that desolate little island state. But it is Naomi Watts, appearing as Julia Cook, who gets a bit of a bum deal in this film. Although the film basically implies that Cook was essentially the woman in Ned Kelly's life, but you would not know that from the minimal screen time that she gets here. Indeed, a lot of the film's hundred and ten minutes feels more freeze-dried than explorative. Once the element of police corruption is established, in fact, the film rockets along so fast at times that it almost feels rushed.<br /><br />Unfortunately, most of the film's strengths are not capitalised upon. Rush barely gets more screen time than his name does in the opening and closing credits. Ditto for Watts, and the rest of the cast come off a little like mannequins. I can only conclude that another fifteen, or even thirty, minutes of footage might have fixed this. But that leads to the other problem, in that the lack of any depth or background to characters other than the titular hero leaves the events of the story with zero impact. One scene manages to do the speech-making thing well, but unfortunately, it all becomes a collage of moments with no linking after a while. If one were to believe the impression that this film creates, a matter of weeks, even days, passes between the time that Ned Kelly becomes a wanted man on the say-so of one corrupt policeman, and the infamous shootout at Glenrowan. Annoyingly, the trial and execution of Ned Kelly is not even depicted here, simply referred to in subtitles before the credits roll.<br /><br />That said, aside from some shaky camera-work at times, Ned Kelly manages to depict some exciting shootouts, and it has a good beginning. For that reason, I rated it a seven out of ten. Other critics have not been so kind, so if you're not impressed by shootouts with unusual elements (and what could more more unusual than full body armour in a colonial shootout?), then you might be better off looking elsewhere. Especially if you want a more factual account of Ned Kelly's life.

positive

I love this movie. It was one of my favorite movies. The action never stops. The whole movie was done very well. The ending is really good. Ontop of it being action filled, they even have a surprised put in there for you. When i saw what the movie was about on the internet i was kind of not sure if i wanted to see this movie, but sense i am such a big Luke perry fan i decided to give it a chance. I am glad that i did give it a chance because this was a very well though out movie. It was very original. Whoever thought up this movie gets a standing ovation from me. The acting was great. Luke Perry did an excellent job once again. I give this movie the highest rating.

positive

I am probably one of the few who actually read Stephen King's book, the one this movie was based on. After reading this excellent work, I could not wait to see the movie version of it. After viewing the movie, I was TOTALLY disappointed. The only thing that this movie has in common with the book is the title and the names of the characters. In the book, Schwarzenegger's character is put on a game show. The main object is to survive. But he's not in an arena. He's set loose in the city and has to escape the game show's (I guess you'd call them) villians, who bear absolutely no resemblence to the movie characters. This premise built much tension and suspension and ended greatly with the climax. The movie was absolute garbage. There was no cinematic quality to it. I totally respect Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor, but he messed up with this one.

negative

Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.<br /><br />Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options!

negative

if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.<br /><br />One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.<br /><br />The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.<br /><br />if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught.

negative

Bedknobs & Broomsticks is another one of Disney's masterpieces. It was filmed with sequences of animation and the actors and actresses interacting with the animations. (A similar concept was used in Mary Poppins when the children and Mary disappear into the sidewalk art.) I am mainly rating this film through child's eyes because I have not seen it in years. Back then, it was one of my favourite films. It was magical and mystical, and the last scenes (the conflict beginning with the ghostly armour walking into battle) were my favourites. There was also a lot of stop-animation used with the spells (ie, people turning into rabbits), which may be a little dated and silly now. (Also, I believe that the film starts off slowly.) Through the eyes of a child, this is a fun film and it is easy for children to put themselves into the places of the children in the film. It is an imaginative film which is sadly largely-forgotten today.

positive

Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father, a film that sheds light on the fractured relationship between the Mahatma and his son Harilal Gandhi. For a story that's as dramatic as the one this film attempts to tell, it's a pity the director fails to tell it dramatically. Gandhi My Father is narrated to you like that boring history lesson that put you to sleep at school. Now the film aims to convey one very interesting point - the fact that Gandhi in his attempt to be a fair person, ended up being an unfair father. This point is made in the film many times over, and one of the examples given to make this point is that scholarship to England, which Gandhi twice denies his son. Instead of showing us how exactly Harilal dealt with this betrayal and what went on in his head, the director just moves along with the story, thus never letting us be witness to the growing resentment Harilal feels towards his father. Which is why when we finally see an outburst from Harilal, it comes off looking like he's over-reacting. <br /><br />The point I'm trying to make here is that we never really get to understand exactly why Harilal became the rebel that he did. We never really understand why he turned to Islam, and then back again to Hinduism. The thing is, we never really understand Harilal at all. And that's because the director of this film is too busy focusing on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his role in the freedom struggle, a story most of us are already familiar with. To put it simply, Gandhi My Father promises to examine the strained father-son relationship, but it doesn't so much as show us where the cracks in this relationship first set in. We understand Harilal had to live with the burden of being Gandhi's son, but show us why that was a burden to begin with. Show us incidents of their early conflict. For example, it's not enough that Gandhi merely says he's opposed to Harilal's early marriage, tell us why this opposition? It's not enough that Kasturba blames her husband for the way her son turned out - for constantly shuttling him between schools in Gujarat and South Africa, for making him relocate every time Gandhi needed to relocate. Words are not enough, show us how these incidents shaped the character of Harilal Gandhi.What's more, instead of sticking with the prickly theme of this tenuous Gandhi versus Gandhi relationship, the film goes off on too many tangents, thus diluting the impact of the central theme. This was never meant to be a film about the struggle for Independence, and yet on many occasions that's exactly what it seems like, because the director feels almost obligated to take us through all the main events leading upto that historic moment, even though much of it has no relevance to the film's basic premise - the stormy father-son relationship. So you see the problem with this film is not that it's a bad film, but it's certainly a very confused film. What happens to Harilal's children after his wife's death? Does he ever have relationship with them? Where do they suddenly vanish after that one scene in which we see them with the Mahatma and Kasturba? None of these questions are answered in a film that's basically meant to be about relationships in the Gandhi family. The film version of an immensely popular play directed by Feroz Abbas Khan himself, Gandhi My Father is a disappointment, no questions asked.Cinematically, it struggles to translate the filmmaker's ambitious intention to the screen. Practically every single scene in the film opens and closes with fade-ins and fade-outs, never quite seamlessly leading into each other. On the positive side, there is inherent nobility in the film, which you recognise. The filmmaker makes every effort to deliver a balanced narrative, trying hard not to take sides, never once judging either father or son, painting neither as the villain. What the film does do, however, is make clear the fact that Gandhi was a difficult patriarch whose ideals may have shaped the nation, but evidently alienated his family. Of all the actors in the film it's only Akshaye Khanna who really shines in the role of the luck-deprived Harilal Gandhi. It's a wonderful performance, and it's not easy since the role covers virtually the entire lifespan of the character. But Akshaye brings a rare concoction of innocence and despondency to that part and succeeds in making Harilal a pitiable figure. Just watch him in that scene in which he discovers his wife's dead, and you'll realise how much he conveys through body language alone. Darshan Jariwala, meanwhile, who plays Gandhi Senior, adopts a caricaturish approach to playing the Mahatma in his later years, but it's the way he humanises the man in his early years as a barrister in South Africa that is the actor's best contribution to that role. The abundantly gifted Shefali Shah plays Kasturba, the woman who's meant to be torn in this father-son conflict, but if she's unable to bring across that feeling of helplessness then it's really not so much her fault as it is the fault of a rickety script. Much effort's gone into the making of this film and that's evident throughout, but the film suffers from that inevitable flaw that is eventually what you'll remember about it when you leave the cinema - it's just so boring.Director Feroz Abbas Khan's Gandhi My Father is a sincere effort yes, but also a film that could have done with a much tighter screenplay. What we learn from the film is that Gandhi and Harilal made each other very unhappy. And with this film, the director makes us too.

positive

As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.<br /><br />It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.<br /><br />This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part of the movie :)

negative

As a fan of author John le Carre I've slowly been working my way through both his books and the adaptations of them. I found this 1987 adaptation of le Carre's masterwork at my local library and sat down to watch it thinking I would know what to expect. I was surprised to discover that my expectations were exceeded in this miniseries, a fine cross between a spy thriller and a human drama.<br /><br />Peter Egan gives a great performance as Magnus Pym, the perfect spy of the title. Carrying on in the long tradition of le Carre's strong main characters, Pym is also quite possibly the best. Egan plays Pym (who in fact contains many shades of author le Carre) as a man forced to spend his entire life lying and betraying sometimes out of circumstance and other times just to survive with the consequence of him becoming "a perfect spy". Egan plays Pym to perfection as a man always on the run, if not from others then from himself. Egan alone makes the six or so hours of this miniseries worth seeing from his performance alone.<br /><br />Surronding Egan is a fantastic supporting cast. Ray McAnally gives one of his finest performances as Pym's con man father Rick who (as le Carre has said) is based strongly on the author's own father. McAnally plays a man who comes in and out of Pym's life and is one of the those responsible for Pym becoming "a perfect spy". In fact if it wasn't for McAnally's performance a year after this in A Very British Coup this would the finest performance of his sadly too short career.<br /><br />The rest of the supporting is excellent as well. From Caroline John as Pym's mother to Alan Howard as his spy mentor to Rüdiger Weigang as the young Pym's friend turned controller to Jane Booker as Pym's wife the supporting cast is fantastic. Special mention should be made of the three young actors who played the younger Pym (Jonathan Haley, Nicholas Haley and Benedict Taylor) who establish the young man who would become the man played so well By Peter Egan.<br /><br />The production values of the miniseries are strong as well. As the miniseries adaptations of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People proved these stories can only be told in miniseries format. The locations are excellent from the English locations to the those scattered across Eastern Europe and the USA as are the sets by Chris Edwards. The cinematography of Elmer Cossey adds an extra layer of realism to the world of the miniseries. Yet the highlight of the miniseries is really the script.<br /><br />Screenwrtier Arthur Hopcraft tackled the job of adapting the six hundred or so page novel excellently. The novel was largely (at least in its early parts) autobiographical in that Pym's early life echoed much of John le Carre's life. The script for this miniseries is no exception as it traces the development of Magnus Pym from young boy to "a perfect spy". Never once does the miniseries deviate from its purpose of telling a fine human drama in the context of the world of espionage. If one ever wants proof that a spy thriller can be tense and fascinating without ever having one gun fight, fist fight, or James Bond style car chase this would be the proof. While the miniseries is six plus hours long it never wastes a moment and it all the better for it.<br /><br />Though it might be overlong for some for those who don't have very short attention spans here is a must see. From the performances of Peter Egan and Ray McAnally to fine production values and a fine literary script A Perfect Spy is one of the finest miniseries who can expect to see. It is a fascinating trip down the history of the Cold War yet it is more then that. It is also a trip down what John le Carre has called "the secret path": the path of the spy the man who must lie and betray to survive. As much a human drama as a spy thriller A Perfect Spy isn't to be missed.

positive