Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds

like 0

This show was incredible, but too esoteric for most people. If you had never truly seen a European variety show in the 70's or 80's (or at least a Mexican one) the entire show would probably be lost on you. If you had, this show was a dead on skewering satire of the phony spectacle and shallowness that these shows dive into at their worst. Helmed by a chain-smoking suave wannabe with a pencil moustache and his ultra-glamorous and immasculating harridan of an EX-wife, "Viva Variety" is a variety show that tries to get off the ground every episode but always descends into in-fighting and acts gone very wrong. The hosts are joined by "Johnny Bluejeans", a dim witted side-kick who seems to have been named because blue jeans are a very popular product in his country and that means the kids will like him, which of course, they don't.<br /><br />The result was a hilarious spoof of variety shows in general. Imagine the arguing that probably happened BACKSTAGE during the last days of the "Sonny & Cher Show". Now imagine it's happening ONSTAGE in front of you and the stars are trying to keep their composure. Now add cheesy acts and a Euro-riche mentality (tuxedoes, gowns, booze, accents and smokes). NOW you have "Viva Variety".<br /><br />Have you ever heard a musician whose music was pretty much written for other musicians? Too conceptual? Viva Variety did this for comedians. WAY too esoteric for the standard American audience. It was funny as Hell. And doomed.

I was more entertained by watching my wife almost pull her hair out in frustration through most of this movie. I thought something that would tie it all together would be just around the corner of the dairy barn any minute. So I cheated, grabbed the remote, and was relieved to find out it was ending in merely 20 minutes. I should have turned the channel. Cute, it had potential, but yuck!

Does anyone happen to know where this film was shot? The aviation scene on the cliff is beautiful. It appears to be England. However, Ivy's apartment building certainly looks like the Brill Building, with its fascinating elevators.<br /><br />Charles Mendl is listed as playing "Sir Charles Gage". Maybe I blinked, but I never saw him. Perhaps he was the husband's lawyer, but, again, I don't recall that character being in the film, other than being mentioned as having made a phone call. Perhaps he was in the aviation scene? Or the ballroom scene? Did anyone spot him?<br /><br />Herbert Marshall was 57 years old when he shot this film.

On the pure theatrical side, Last Stand was great, as the reenactments and soundtrack are very entertaining, but there are better accounts of this battle found elsewhere that, while not as long or as flashy, are far more historically comprehensive.<br /><br />Certain little details, such as the misuse of the word "hoplon" for the Greek hoplite shield and the mispronounciations of various names and words, really ate at me.<br /><br />My guess would be, that because "Last Stand of the 300" was aired the eve of the theatrical release of "300", the History Channel was only trying to ride the coattails of the movie's hype.<br /><br />If you're looking for a depiction that's historically accurate in all respects possible, you'd have better luck elsewhere.

David Lynch's new short is a very "Lynchian" piece, full of darkness, tension, silences, discreet but very textured background music, and features again two beautiful actresses, a blonde and a brunette, a recurrent theme in his work.<br /><br />Both characters create a very intriguing slave-mistress relationship that could be seen as a direct follow up to the same kind of relationship featured in Mulholland Dr.<br /><br />Beautiful. For Lynch fan's.<br /><br />

I had no problem with the film, which I thought was pretty good. It's the actual LAPD crime scene video that disturbed me. I wonder if Lion's Gate REALLY thought that the general viewing audience would want to see people that were brutally beaten to death and blood all over the place. Sorry Lion's Gate, this was an INCREDIBLY BAD IDEA!!!<br /><br />Getting back to the film: The cast was excellent, especially Val Kilmer as the late John Holmes. John Holmes was a sleaze ,mistreats the women in his life (Lisa Kudrow as his wife, Kate Bosworth as his girlfriend),and he is hopelessly deep into drugs. His connection to Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian)creates a spiral that resulted in the infamous Wonderland murders. Exactly how much was Holmes involved in the murders? We may never know the entire truth to the story(Nash is still alive and a free man),but the film does a pretty good job nonetheless.

The films use of blue-black and vibrant skin tones to create a noir-ish feel to this movie unfortunately do not work. In fact its quite irritating as it obscures the demon characters and reduces them to one dimensional beings.<br /><br />At least the original had an hysterical energy and the gore set-pieces were quite stunning. Black gore is hardly frightening, nor is the main female demon at all frightening in her attempts to snarl and growl at the screen in her best camp Lugosi style.<br /><br />The narrative is grossly disjointed and if you could imagine 'Naked Lunch' directed by Russ Meyer you may appreciate the attempt to be William Burroughs-esque. Otherwise give this film a wide girth. Bava and Argento fans - once again - are bitterly disappointed.

Shot into car from through the windscreen, someone is playing someone else their latest song, someone else didn't react, according to the voice-over. I just wonder how that came to be made. There were too many scenes in this movie that I wondered about how come a camera was there. If the scenes shot where the Warhols descended on a BJM post-party are true then that was inexcusable exploitation to the max, if not, then it was a total fabrication, either way it made me uncomfortable, if that was the purpose? All the way thru this movie I kept wondering how the footage came about. Taken at face value, a nice portrait of the (tortured) genius we all believe ourselves to be.

This silly movie is really fun for the younger audiences. Its heros are a couple of dud detectives whose sophomoric attitudes lead them down some very silly roads. Chasing the big murder case, you will see these detectives go to every length to solve the crime. No nudity, but lots of sexual implication, slapstick silliness...everything adolescents go for. Low budget, but very entertaining. Definite cult classic potential.

Kate Gulden, played by one of the most nominated actresses of the last decade of this century, and also one of the most talented actresses Meryl Streep(Out of Africa). She is wonderful is every part that she plays. The Yale graduate is the pride and joy of the American Cinema.<br /><br />Kate's health is deteriorating and her husband, George, role well developed by brilliant actor and also Oscar winner, William Hurt (Smoke, Kiss of the Spider Woman) has a hard time with the deteriorating health of his one true thing, and seeks his daughter's help. The poor daughter, Ellen Gulden, Renée Zellweger (Jerry Maguire) has way too much expected of her. No breaks! The story takes a very realistic view on the illness of a parent. In this movie the only daughter has to put her life on hold to care for the needs of others. There is always one in every family who faces that kind of responsibility. Ellen is angry the beginning of the movie, but as time passes she ends up understanding her mothers' life time dedication to her family. She even asks her mom: How do you do his, every day, in and out and nobody notices it? That is what women do, a lot of what I call invisible work. Moreover we clean, we fix, we mend, we stretch, we celebrate, we are the best friends, we are confidants, the mistress, outreachers, disciplinarians, sensitive. Some of us, like both women in this movie, have the perfect education, are the psychological pillar for the entire family and also do all that invisible work! That is Kate Ellen, and many women in our society. Many of us have already gone through that stage of life when our parents age and died. I have been there. They just went too young. I have given my parents my thanks, but I never understood them as well as when I had to play their roles, and had to walk in their shoes. This movie mirrors the reality of life. Perhaps it is sad, but that is how life is, at times. George a Professor at Harvard is complicated person, who appears to think that his work is more important than everybody else, and has a very "master/servant" mentality toward the women in his life. He is not strong enough to cope. If you want to see good acting and the reality of life do not miss this movie. Favorite Scenes: The restaurant coming to Kate, violins and all. The making of a table out of broken china. That I so symbolic! We are all broken vessels! Favorite Quotes: George: "It is only by going uphill, that you realize that you are really going downhill." George "You have a Harvard education but where is your heart?" <br /><br />

This should have rocked. VH1 moved away from the traditional divas (Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, etc.) that had made the 2003 show so stale. Sadly the move backfired. The show had no MC keeping the show together. Queen Latifah did a fantastic show at the 2003 Divas. The show kicked of with a horrific rendition of Lady Marmalade featuring Patti Labelle, Cyndi Lauper, and Jessica Simpson. Okay in the studio with some control they can all sound great. <br /><br />However, when they are competing with each other (why?) it just sounds torturous! Jessica Simpson has the most bizarre facial expressions when she sings that i've ever witnessed! Cyndi Lauper also performed Girl Just Wanna Have Fun. That wasn't as bad but it was hardly impressive. The worst was yet to come! Cyndi and Patti Labelle teamed up to perform Cyndi's hit 'Time After Time'. It was acoustic, and didn't fit in with the rest of the show. Still it could've been okay if they both hadn't insisted on squealing like mamed animals. It was just dire.<br /><br />Debbie Harry (from Blondie) is always cool. She has a style of her own and although maybe she can't compete vocally with a many of the divas although she certainly can sing very well. Debbie came out and performed Blondie's #1 hit 'Rapture'. With some lovely vocals. She really hit the notes perfectly. She looked stunning. Rapper Eve provided a new, but sadly inferior rap. It was good. Debbie's next performance was a team-up with newcomer Joss Stone. They performed the Blondie hit 'One Way Or Another'. I think Joss misunderstood the style of the song and just shouted over Debbie. A rather sad bit was when Debbie tried and failed to match her shouty style which spoiled it a bit. She should've just let Joss get on with her totally inappropriate warballing. The whole of Blondie performed this track. The final track Debbie performed was Blondie's massive hit 'Call Me'. It was pretty poor. Not Debbie's fault because you just couldn't hear her. The sound was atrocious all the way through the show.<br /><br />Joss Stone also performed a few songs on her own. They were quite well done. Ashanti also showed up to perform two inexplicable cover versions. Firstly she did Diana Ross' 'I'm Coming Out', and then Chaka Khan's 'Ain't Nobody'. She is not a diva! She can sing to an extent but she has no presence whatsoever. Why not just get the real singers in. Chaka was even interviewed on the show....<br /><br />Gladys Knight showed up and did a medley. It was very good. She was probably the best bit of the show. I don't know much about her other than she is a seasoned performer in Las Vegas and her experience and class really shone through. Patti Labelle fitted in another performance this time her 80's hit 'New Attitude'. It was the finale and it was okay but it was too little to late. This was one big dud. Better luck next time VH1.<br /><br />The version I saw was a heavily edited 55min version which was shown on VH1 in the UK. If these were the best bits.....

***Minor Plot Spoilers***<br /><br />I must confess to having a soft spot for Wayne Crawford. I know little about him, but he appears to have masses of enthusiasm to compensate for his lack of talent. In his films he usually performs multi-tasks - perm any 3 from lead male, director, producer and script-writer - tackling story lines from the sub-basement. Despite this the end product is usually enjoyable fun for the non-discerning.<br /><br />'The Evil Below' features Crawford as a down-on-his-luck Captain of a ramshackle charter boat, a bit like Bogart in 'To Have & Have Not' - the similarities between the films ends here though.<br /><br />The story begins with an underwater scene with two divers searching a wreck, before being attacked by an unseen creature - bit like the start of 'Jaws 2'. The wreck turns out to be that of the 'El Diablo', which went down centuries earlier. The ship was manned by heretic priests on the run from Spain, with a cargo of stolen Church treasure. This allows the introduction of various links to supernatural forces with Lucifer and The Armageddon both getting a look in. The films title refers to this sunken Devil-ship, rather than any malevolent sea-creature.<br /><br />Whatever faults the film has (and there are many) it is fun to watch and competently made. You can't help but like a film which, in the final 5 minutes, copies the famous beach scene in 'From Here to Eternity' and the final line from 'Casablanca'.

As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".<br /><br />There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail.

Just PPV'd this. I don't want to waste too much time on this as most of the posters here put it better than I ever could, but I did want to say a few things.<br /><br />I didn't know which was funnier: Redgrave chasing tiny moths and tripping over her nurse; Close wailing that her "precious" boy (whom she and the Mr. had decided was a drunken loser) has been turned into roadkill; that the tone-deaf Ann schmoozed with Peggy Lee; or the horrid CGI of Crypt Keeper Annie gazing at her younger self!<br /><br />I never bought Danes as the younger Redgrave. I didn't buy Richardson and Collette as sisters, either. If Meryl Streep's daughter wants to be an actress, she better get Mama to give her a few lessons! I had zero idea why any girl (or Buddy) would make fools of themselves over vapid stud du jour Harris! Ann's daughters are as whiny and thoughtless as she, Luc is a retarded slacker on crack, and I didn't give a rot about any of them! Evening gives Chick Flicks a bad name!

When I saw this movie at age 6, it was in the CHILDRENS' section at Erols Video because it was animation. We watched it and it was a whole different ball game! A very violent story and graphic deaths are VERY entertaining and compelling, but not for children. Avoid for family viewing, my mom nearly had a heart attack and ripped the video apart!

I am sitting here watching the film, Tango and Cash. IT led to a discussion about other great late 80s movies. The ridiculous Tunrer and Hooch, K9 connection came up.<br /><br />Granted I have never seen K9PI and if I still value my life, I never will. Joshua quotes this as his movie of the year. Wow. Wow. I am utterly astonished that this movie exists. But so much more than that the fact that Joshua likes this move disturbs me to the core. I think Joshua is one interesting guy <br /><br />K9<br /><br />K9

A fierce, shockingly intelligent piece of work from the gifted British writer Hanif Kureishi who wrote "My Beautiful Laundrette", (this is the best thing he's done since then). It's about intelligent people whose lives don't add up to much. They've squandered what they have been given and are largely empty vessels. The only character on screen who is alive is the mother of the title yet she feels dead inside until a rough handyman shows her some affection and awakens her to the joys of sex. He has his own motives but Kureishi treats him with a good deal of compassion. This is a film in which people and places feel familiar, where characters exist beyond the confines of the screen. In some respects it's a bit like "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" but it's an altogether tougher piece of work. The director, Roger Michell, allows scenes to build instinctively. And it is beautifully acted.<br /><br />As the eponymous mother Anne Reid betrays her wasted life in every gesture. There is not a false note in her extraordinarily lived-in performance, and that very fine actor Daniel Craig displays shadings to his character than even Kureishi hasn't tapped into. If the film strikes a false note it is, perhaps, in the character of the talentless daughter, caught up in a messy affair with the man her mother seduces (or should that be the other way round) and even messier life, but she is so well played by Cathryn Bradshaw she hooks you in nevertheless. The film is also extremely beautiful to look at (DoP Alwin Kuchler) and must rank, unhesitatingly, as the best British film of the year.

This film illustrates the worst part of surviving war, the memories. For many soldiers, men and women alike, returning home can be the beginning of real problems. I am reminded of my father and his brothers returning from WWII. For one of my uncles the war was never over. He survived the D-Day invasion, something akin to the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. For him the memories not only lingered but tortured him. He became an alcoholic as did several of my cousins, his sons. Jump ahead 60 years and place the soldiers in a different war, in a different country, the result is the same. When I saw this at the KC FilmFest, I was reminded that there are somethings about war that never change. The idealistic young men and women are not spared the emotional torment of what happened in Iraq, and especially if you are against the war you will come away with more compassion for the soldiers there trying to do what they believe or have been told is right.<br /><br />The tag line from the Vietnam war film Platoon says it all. "The First Casualty of War is Innocence."

If you love the book, as I do, stop watching the video after Jean and Joe meet in Australia. Up to that point it is a fairly faithful rendition of the book, and the visuals are great. 10 out of 10 to that point and I've enjoyed it many times. After that, the story is seriously rearranged and revised in ways that really destroy the key part of the book, i.e., how Jean creates a town like Alice (Springs). In the early part, the major change is to make Strachan a 40-something bachelor instead of a seventy-year old widower. This rather skews this love story, especially when there are also small changes that contribute to making him more selfish and avaricious, such as: in the book, he intimates to Joe at the ship that he might find more than a letter waiting for him in Australia, but in the video he gives Joe no clue about Jean's whereabouts or intentions. The last hour of the 5-hour video scrunches and mangles the last third of the book. I see no reason why they threw in a fight between Joe and Jean -- it is quite out of character and seems to be just an Aussie dig at Pommies for telling them what to do. Then they bring on Strachan for the wedding (instead of some three years later) -- and have him read the toast!! -- very strange, especially in the context of the relationship between Jean and Noel as cast in the video. The whole wedding scene is the invention of the screenwriters. These abominations take up time in the last hour, which was already not long enough to do justice to the fascinating story of how Jean recreates Willstown as a place where she and Joe can both be happy.

I described Woody Allen's Manhattan as perfect to someone the other day, and she thought that it was an odd way to describe a movie...<br /><br />I have seen only a handful of movies that I would call perfect. Manhattan is one, McCabe & Ms. Miller by Robert Altman is another and Once Upon a Time in the West by Sergio Leone is also another film that I think achieves perfection. There are a few others, but aside from the fact that I find no faults in the three I mentioned, I must also admit that all three directors are acquired tastes.<br /><br />If there is one film that I could stand behind and bet the house that anyone I would show it to would find it flawless it's Shoulder Arms.<br /><br />City Lights, The Great Dictator, The Gold Rush and even the Pawnshop are 10's but not only did Chaplin do everything right in this film, everything he did is hilarious and touching to a level beyond explanation.

Zatoichi The Outlaw was the first film made by its hero's (Shintaro Katsu) own production company, this is perhaps why this is a slightly lesser entry in the series, though it is by no means weak overall. It tells of our hero coming across two towns, rival bosses and a mysterious ronin helping the poor and from this set up spins a tale encompassing tragedy, violence and no little interest, all served up with lashings of the unshowy but inspired swordplay that is one of the series trademarks. It is a fairly predictable plot and it mounts in unsurprising fashion, but it zips along with style and is interesting stuff. The helpful ronin for example is a nobly inscrutable revolutionary character, upsetting the established order without being painted as a truly likable or heroic figure, Zatoichi himself makes one or two mistakes and causes harm by his actions, whilst the ruling system fuels the exploitation of the poor. Its a harsh world, with one or two more visceral than expected moments in the fighting, though things aren't as rousing as they could be. Shintaro Katsu turns in a typical bravura performance as Zatoichi, mixing wisdom, deadly skill and worldliness with a subtly sad sense of vulnerability, while solid work comes also from Rentarô Mikuni and an effectively baleful Kô Nishimura (later to appear as Katsu's superior "Snake" Magobei in the Hanzo trilogy) as the two main bosses in the film. There is also a good emotional turn from Yuko Hamada as a wronged woman. The film loses out through shaky pacing and a not so well constructed sequence of events, there is at least one slightly jarring time jump and the power of the plot becomes a little lost, meaning that when things heat up towards the end the film isn't as exciting as it could be, emotional impact is lost also. The action or scenes of Zatoichi using his ingenious skills are well handled by director Satsuo Yamamoto, though some of the gambling is less interesting and the film builds up in a workmanlike rather than really inspired way, without the lively characters or strong verve of some other installments. Still, I enjoyed this one, it has its flaws and isn't one of the best of the series but it still packs a sweetly satisfying dose of entertainment, a good story and decent doses of Zatoichi's trademark ingenious and quirky cool. Recommended for fans of the series, and a reasonable entry point, classy stuff though not a true great.

Rarely does a film capture such intense drama and emotion. What makes this film so unsettling is that the drama feels so real, it's almost hard to remember that it's only a movie. This is by far Madeline Stowe and Alan Rickman's performance of their careers. The film almost feels like a theatrical production the way it is staged and lit. The only bad thing about this movie is that it's very difficult to get a copy of it. I have yet to see it other than on Laserdisc. This truly powerful film deserves a digitally remastered transfer and special edition treatment on DVD. It really is that good.

No one can argue with it. This IS and WILL BE the best movie ever, as it is the perfect definition of what any movie should be : a collective hypnosis beyond times. No movie can give you more perfectly this impression that you carried it inside you, even before you saw it for the first time.<br /><br />There are images that stay forever...

First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.<br /><br />Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look "real" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for "reality" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream "genius" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.<br /><br />Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.<br /><br />What a sad waste.

George & Mildred - The Movie lacks the talents of its TV writer John Mortimer who brings the close quarter cut and thrust of George's class war with the Fourmiles alive.<br /><br />The plot is cut from standard spin-off cloth - hit-man/mistaken identity - and has as little tension as there are laughs. The producers should have taken a leaf from Rising Damp, (also 1980)which was also bought to the big screen after the TV series demise, and kept much of the story in familiar setting.<br /><br />Yootha Joyce died in 1980 but she should not be remembered for this creaking piece of work encumbered as she was by her illness. Mildred lacks the sharpness of her TV incarnation; cutting asides and withering looks largely directed at Georges lack of libido. George's sputtering incredulity also gets lost in the more expansive sets. This is not to say that they were much to shout about. The budget for this movies looks pathetically small; a restaurant they go to is clearly a new semi-starched house with some Christmas lights adorning the front door.<br /><br />For fans of 70's British comedy or those who just want to revisit an old TV companion from their youth this film can add nothing to the experience and they should just stick to the first four TV series out now on DVD.

I know Terry Gilliam is considered as a good director but claiming that this movie is good is just foolish. What was the movie about? What is it a spoof? Fantasy? Comedy? Satire? No answer there from Gilliam's screenplay. Totally confused and pointlessly hurtling from one historical age to another. I find it amusing that some people actually call this movie magical. Is it because they have to praise any movie which is vague and indecisive on what it is about?? 3 stars for special effects considering it is 1981. Roger Ebert has it right in his review. The movie is ambiguous and looks like Gilliam's romp with money just to make a vague children's move masquerading as a historical revue. The movie also tries to confuse the would-be viewer by giving John Cleese and Sean Connery top billing.

I was very concerned about this film, it was scheduled to play at a Jewish Film Festival, and was reported to be very hostile to Israel, while using clever humor and irony.<br /><br />I was relieved that the film was not a diatribe, however as a work of film it was deeply disappointing. The film was full of random events, some of which eventually connected, most of which did not. Some of the events were very clever and funny, but some were merely random and pointless.<br /><br />There are repeated scenes between two lovers where they sit in a car, wordlessly, and play some handholding game. Perhaps in some cultures this is erotic, but it's like watching thumb-wrestling. After the third time, it really became tiresome.<br /><br />I have always found David Lynch to be gratuitously bizarre, using strange stories and images to cause audiences to think that he is SO sophisticated that they don't grasp his work; in fact, there is nothing to grasp. The same is true here, the stories do not add up to anything, and there is not much of a political point being made (in one scene a boisterous Israeli soldier humiliates Palestinian drivers at a checkpoint. That's news?)<br /><br />I don't understand why this film has garnered controversy, nor why it has garnered attention. It is an inferior work and seeing it was a waste of time.

This film was different. It took a sort of typical thriller story and reached for a more interesting, in-depth look at an individual character's struggle with faith. Of course, it helped that the main performance, by Andrew McCarthy, was quite excellent. The other performances were also quite interesting, although not as consistent. The ending was a bit of a let down, but there were lots of good moments. The film-makers tried something different here -- they didn't just go for the obvious chills and scares. This is a dark film (not for everyone) but if you want to be entertained and not talked down to, try this one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of many of Woody's movies, obviously his late 70's masterpieces (Annie Hall,Interiors, Manhattan)and most of his late 80's/early 90's dramas (Hannah, Crimes and Misdemeaners,Husbands and Wives) in fact I even liked some of his more recent efforts (Melinda, Anything Else, Small Time Crooks) but this was abysmal, I though it couldn't possibly be any worse than last years Match Point but how wrong I was.<br /><br />It was lazily plotted - basically a cross between Match Point, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks,with all the jokes taken out - Woody seems to be on the way out as well, slurring most of his lines and delivering 'hilarious' catchphrases 'I mean that with all due respect...' over and over until the blandness of it all becomes to much to bare.<br /><br />I know that most actors are queuing up to work with him but they should at least read the script first - Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman are so much better than this - and Woody should really take a more behind the camera role in future, if he has any sense about 20 miles behind it.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't have so many great Woody films to compare this to - but it is clear that his best days are behind him and judging by this effort, Woody should call it a day before he becomes an industry joke.<br /><br />Embarrassingly bad

One of the most pleasurable aspects of movie viewing is to get lost in a film. To have it totally wash over you, so that you absorb it as it is, and thus, experience it to the fullest. Every time I see it, 'The Egyptian' is such a film. Over the years it is a picture critics have loved to hate. Many have thrown darts at its vulnerabilities. But perhaps it is because of the very tone the film brings with it rather than its most obvious characteristics. It is at once forbidding, remote, possibly dangerous; beware of what lies within! The haunting chords of the music, seen over the 20th-Fox logo, usher us into titles of other-worldly turquoise lettering.<br /><br />Strange! Archaeological! Decadent! It is as if we are descending into some vault of antiquity, wherein might be great treasures, mixed with uncertain hazards. (One might imagine Darryl Zanuck commanding: 'Make it ancient!') Then, what a darkly dramatic story unfolds, all within the same tone set at the start.<br /><br />Of Hollywood's mid-50s 'Egyptian Trilogy', 'The Ten Commandments' portrayed the civilization's sternness, the phenomenal 'Land of the Pharaohs' its nuts and bolts, while 'The Egyptian' shows it all, from glamour to tragedy, for us to wonder at.<br /><br />No need to say much about the players here, but I think that, with the passage of time, Bella Darvi is being redeemed. What a perfect face for the role, right out of a Symbolist painting. If her acting does not please some, it might be argued that, in her role as a 'courtesan', she is obviously better in bed than yakking to some poor helpless admirer. I think that Curtiz captured the kinkiness of her sado-masochistic relationship with Edmund Purdom's character with aplomb, censorship being what it was at the time. Sir Peter Ustinov, in his memoirs, was pretty kind to 'The Egyptian', writing that it was 'like being lost in a huge set for 'Aida'. His pronunciation of the word 'beer' I have adopted myself ever after.(One of the film's historically accurate references: the Egyptian's invented beer!) Henry Daniell, egads, what a perfect performance. Gene Tierney, what a screen treasure. Bless DFZ for giving her this 'late' role. C'mon folks, don't be so hard on Victor Mature! He's a cheesemaker's son! Who rose to be pharaoh! Sounds like a peculiarly American opportunity. One of the best moments: John Carradine's existential observations on the sands of time. And Purdom's utterance about dwelling beyond the sunset of the world. If that isn't Grade 'A' epicness, what is?<br /><br />Of course, along with everything else, the music is sublime. It is frequently noted that Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann created one of the screen's most compelling scores, perfectly harmonious, yet each theme is well developed, with a life of its own. Newman, pressed for time by DFZ, called in Herrmann, someone he could trust implicitly, to take up half the burden.<br /><br />Benny, not the easiest guy to work with, obviously respected Newman enough to really deliver inspiring music. They alternated cues, an ingenious approach. No spoilers as to who did what here, but Benny brings an edge with him, mysterious, awesome sounds. Alfred brings fulsomeness, longing, poignancy. Both are consummately epic. Even when seen on a squeezed TV print, the effect of seeing the two composers' names side by side in the main credits, which the ultra-wide anamorphic screen could comfortably accommodate, is spine-tingling.<br /><br />Leon Shamroy, the Dean of CinemaScope, does not let us down here. The lurid greens and moody shadows (probably distortions in all the terrible TV prints I've seen through the years) perfectly accompany the multi-dimensional script (by the great Philip Dunne and WB vet Casey Robinson, whom Curtiz must've brought with him to 20th). How remarkable it is that Shamroy, who was as much of an institution of cinematography at Fox as Newman was with music, would lens 'Cleopatra' a few years later, but in the brighter, sharper images of '60s Todd A-O. These old studio guys are really heroes of mine.<br /><br />To me, who wants to fret about all the imperfections and criticism opportunities in a picture like this? I'd rather yield entirely to its spell, and dive off into its sea of lavishness, to emerge after the inspiring climax of 'The End' refreshed, moved, and hungry for more.<br /><br />And yes, we should cry out to 20th-Fox for a DVD release worthy of DFZ's legacy.

This movie is very violent, yet exciting with original dialog and cool characters. It has one of the most moving stories and is very true to life. The movie start off with action star Leo Fong as a down and out cop who is approaching the end of his career, when he stumbles on to a big case that involves corruption, black mail and murder. This is where the killings start. From start finish Fong delivers in this must see action caper. This movie also co-stars Richard Roundtree.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this film as a child but as I got older I realized that this film is pretty cheesy and not very good. I would not recommend this film and the action is very, very bad.

Fairly good movie, but not a true story.<br /><br />Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was a notorius liar, a murder and was never found not guilty. New Jersey State just didn't go for it a third time as 20 years had gone. Carter got an offer in 1976: "Pass a lie test and go free". He didn't take it. This film should never have been made, but money talks. A lot of people have unjustly spend their lives in prison and undoubtedly more blacks than white. Why choose a fake story?<br /><br />Jens

The plot of this movie is as dumb as a bag of hair. Jimmy Smit plays a character that could have been upset by the ridiculousness of the story. He is evil and a wife beater. It's a character as far from his NYPD and LA Law roles as you could possibly get.<br /><br />If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to play the really bad boy role, her's your present.<br /><br />But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie.<br /><br />She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies. This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer.<br /><br />I'd buy the DVD for this reason only if it was available.

No budget direct to video tale of aliens in Arizona involving the military and escaped convicts.<br /><br />Not bad as such, rather it suffers from the cast and crew sort of going through the paces instead of trying to sell it. Its as if they knew they were in a grade z movie and want you to know they know. Then again maybe they just couldn't get it together.<br /><br />A misfire of a grade z movie that could have been something if some one cared--and had skill. Why must low budget filmmakers insist on not actually trying to make a something good instead of just making a product.<br /><br />2 out of 10 because nothing comes together

It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept. <br /><br />It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.<br /><br />It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.<br /><br />No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant. <br /><br />Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.

I have recently seen this movie due to Jake's recent success with Brokeback Mountain. I figured I would see the movies that I missed. I had no expectations going into the film so was astounded that I had missed this movie at all. It's a gripping father and son tale, and it is also an underdog story. I even shed a tear at the finale of this wonderful tale. This movie appeals to all ages. The only reason I give it a 9 out of 10 is that it slows down a little in the middle, but it comes back strong in the end. The acting was great, the story was magnificent, and the cinematography was captivating given the setting of the film. GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Rent it, buy it, watch it, LOVE IT! I know I did!

"Hollywood Hotel" has relationships to many films like "Ella Cinders" and "Merton of the Movies" about someone winning a contest including a contract to make films in Hollywood, only to find the road to stardom either paved with pitfalls or non-existent. In fact, as I was watching it tonight, on Turner Classic Movies, I was considering whether or not the authors of the later musical classic "Singing In The Rain" may have taken some of their ideas from "Hollywood Hotel", most notably a temperamental leading lady star in a movie studio and a conclusion concerning one person singing a film score while another person got the credit by mouthing along on screen.<br /><br />"Hollywood Hotel" is a fascinating example of movie making in the 1930s. Among the supporting players is Louella Parsons, playing herself (and, despite some negative comments I've seen, she has a very ingratiating personality on screen and a natural command of her lines). She is not the only real person in the script. Make-up specialist Perc Westmore briefly appears as himself to try to make one character resemble another.<br /><br />This film also was one of the first in the career of young Mr. Ronald Reagan, playing a radio interviewer at a movie premiere. Reagan actually does quite nicely in his brief scenes - particularly when he realizes that nobody Dick Powell is about to take over the microphone when it should be used with more important people.<br /><br />Dick Powell has won a Hollywood contract in a contest, and is leaving his job as a saxophonist in Benny Goodman's band. The beginning of this film, by the way, is quite impressive, as the band drives in a parade of trucks to give a proper goodbye to Powell. They end up singing "Hooray For Hollywood". The interesting thing about this wonderful number is that a lyric has been left out on purpose. Throughout the Johnny Mercer lyrics are references to such Hollywood as Max Factor the make-up king, Rin tin tin, and even a hint of Tarzan. But the original song lyric referred to looking like Tyrone Power. Obviously Jack Warner and his brothers were not going to advertise the leading man of 20th Century Fox, and the name Donald Duck was substituted. In any event the number showed the singers and instrumentalists of Goodman's orchestra at their best. So did a later five minute section of the film, where the band is rehearsing.<br /><br />Powell leaves the band and his girl friend (Frances Langford) and goes to Hollywood, only to find he is a contract player (most likely for musicals involving saxophonists). He is met by Allen Joslyn, the publicist of the studio (the owner is Grant Mitchell). Joslyn is not a bad fellow, but he is busy and he tends to slough off people unless it is necessary to speak to them. He parks Powell at a room at the Hollywood Hotel, which is also where the studio's temperamental star (Lola Lane) lives with her father (Hugh Herbert), her sister (Mabel Todd), and her sensible if cynical assistant (Glenda Farrell). Lane is like Jean Hagen in "Singing In The Rain", except her speaking voice is good. Her version of "Dan Lockwood" is one "Alexander Dupre" (Alan Mowbray, scene stealing with ease several times). The only difference is that Mowbray is not a nice guy like Gene Kelly was, and Lane (when not wrapped up in her ego) is fully aware of it. Having a fit on being by-passed for an out-of-the ordinary role she wanted, she refuses to attend the premiere of her latest film. Joslyn finds a double for her (Lola's real life sister Rosemary Lane), and Rosemary is made up to play the star at the premiere and the follow-up party. But she attends with Powell (Joslyn wanting someone who doesn't know the real Lola). This leads to Powell knocking down Mowbray when the latter makes a pest of himself. But otherwise the evening is a success, and when the two are together they start finding each other attractive.<br /><br />The complications deal with Lola coming back and slapping Powell in the face, after Mowbray complains he was attacked by Powell ("and his gang of hoodlums"). Powell's contract is bought out. Working with photographer turned agent Ted Healey (actually not too bad in this film - he even tries to do a Jolson imitation at one point), the two try to find work, ending up as employees at a hamburger stand run by bad tempered Edgar Kennedy (the number of broken dishes and singing customers in the restaurant give Edgar plenty of time to do his slow burns with gusto). Eventually Powell gets a "break" by being hired to be Dupre's singing voice in a rip-off of "Gone With The Wind". This leads to the final section of the film, when Rosemary Lane, Herbert, and Healey help give Powell his chance to show it's his voice, not Mowbrays.<br /><br />It's quite a cute and appealing film even now. The worst aspects are due to it's time. Several jokes concerning African-Americans are no longer tolerable (while trying to photograph Powell as he arrives in Hollywood, Healey accidentally photographs a porter, and mentions to Joslyn to watch out, Powell photographs too darkly - get the point?). Also a bit with Curt Bois as a fashion designer for Lola Lane, who is (shall we say) too high strung is not very tolerable either. Herbert's "hoo-hoo"ing is a bit much (too much of the time) but it was really popular in 1937. And an incident where Healey nearly gets into a brawl at the premiere (this was one of his last films) reminds people of the tragic, still mysterious end of the comedian in December 1937. But most of the film is quite good, and won't disappoint the viewer in 2008.

Being a great fan of horror, especially Asian horror, I have seen tons of movies, but this one is outstanding. Why? It does have a plot (which is unfortunately quite rare among horror movies). The actors did a good job. It feels like a real documentary film (even if it's not). It does not get boring for a moment. The director cleverly combines the plot with the acts of a certain Japanese magic cult (perhaps this cult never existed, but still, it's believable). It reminded me of the similarly great movie "Forbidden Siren".<br /><br />To me the one and only annoying thing about the movie was the character Hori, the psychic, but this is subjective.<br /><br />I recommend this movie to all fans of quality horror.<br /><br />9 out of 10.

The photography is accomplished, the acting is quite good, but in virtually every other department The Greek Tycoon is a dreary bore. Taking its inspiration from the real-life love affair of Jackie Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, the film is a glossy but absolutely empty soap opera of the kind that can be found on TV all day long. Viewers who embrace the whole "celebrity magazine culture" (paparazzi photographs and gossipy stories about the rich and famous) will undoubtedly find much to whet their appetite here. But those who prefer films with a bit more substance and craft and quirkiness will find the 107 minute running time a butt-numbing slog.<br /><br />American president James Cassidy (James Franciscus) and his beautiful wife Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) are in Greece on official business. A ridiculously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Theo Tomasis (Anthony Quinn), catches sight of Liz at a party at his elegant manor. Despite the fact that both of them are married to someone else, there is an immediate attraction between them. Later, at a private party aboard his yacht, Tomasis makes his desires known to Liz. Some while later, President Cassidy is assassinated whilst out strolling on a beach. Liz is shocked and saddened by his death, but it isn't long before she seeks comfort in the arms of her Greek lover Tomasis. Eventually the two of them are married and their love affair becomes a favourite talking point for the world's newspapers, magazines, photographers and wags.<br /><br />It is somewhat amusing to note the vigour with which the producers of this film denied that it was a dramatisation of the Kennedy-Onassis story. They wanted the film to be seen as an original story, rooted in fiction. But anyone with a brain can see from where the movie is drawing its inspiration. Even Aristotle Onassis himself knew The Greek Tycoon amounted to his love-life getting the Hollywood treatment (if rumours are to be believed, he actually had a hand in approving Anthony Quinn for the Tomasis role!) J. Lee-Thompson isn't really the right sort of director for this type of movie – he's better suited to action fodder like The Guns Of Navarone and Ice Cold In Alex – but he marshals the proceedings with an uninspired, professional adequacy. Quinn is very watchable as Tomasis; Bisset looks lovely as the object of his desires; Franciscus uses his toothy smile and a façade of integrity to make for a believable politician. Their performances are good on the surface, but there's little for the actors to do on any deeper level. Similarly, Tony Richmond's photography gives the film an elegant surface sheen as it moves from one exotic locale to the next, but the merest of scratches proves that there's nothing behind the film's glossy exterior.

Even though many people here praises this movie, I have to warn you. It has no logic whatsoever. I think that Basinger does a decent job at acting, but you can't make a thriller if there is a great lack of realism.<br /><br />This scene paints a good picture for you of the movie : while Basinger is pursued by murderous thugs she decides to sit down and gaze upon a picture she finds from her pocket. The picture is from her daughter and it reads "we love you mommy". Who does something like that ? What the eff? And believe me when I say that it is not nearly as stupid as some other scenes of the movie. Someone stated that this is a "hidden gem". Well, I have to strongly disagree, this movie has stayed hidden for a reason. And it's not a gem. Oh, and please, I don't even want to start commenting about the red toolbox. It hurts my brain :D Usually the lack of logic does not bother me if it is in small amounts, but this movie basically is made possible only because of the lack of logic. But, i still give it a 4 because even though it is embarrassingly flawed in logic, it has certain mood that kept me watching till the end.<br /><br />So if you choose to watch this, you know you have been warned.

In her autobiography,Laureen Bacall reveals that Bogie told her that she should not make such dud movies as this one or something like that.At the time,Douglas Sirk was labeled "weepies for women",actually,he was restored to favor,at least in Europa,after he stopped directing.And when he filmed "written on the wind" ,Sirk had only three movies to make:"tarnished Angels","A time to love and a time to die",his masterpiece,IMHO,and finally" Imitation of life"(1960).Then there was silence. Actually Bacall and Hudson characters do not interest Sirk.They are too straight,too virtuous.Dorothy Malone -who was some kind of substitute for his former German star Zarah Leander-and her brother Robert Stack provide the main interest of the plot.A plot constructed continuously ,most of the movie being a long flashback.The instability of the brother and the sister ,from a family of rich Texan oil owners,is brought to the fore by garish clothes,and rutilant cars that go at top speed in a derricks landscape. Malone's metamorphosis at the end of the movie is stunning :suit and chignon,toying with a small derrick:she's ready for life,the rebel is tamed. Now alone,because she's lost Hudson (but anyway,he was not in love with her).This end is a bit reactionary,but melodrama is par excellence reactionary;three years later,in "imitation of life",Sarah-Jane (Susan Kohner) will be blamed because she does not know her place.

Second-tier American leading man Guy Madison plays a character whose notoriety precedes him in this Spaghetti Western – which, having very modest credentials emerges as essentially routine (though featuring a nice enough score). The plot offers some mild interest: the title, incidentally, refers to a wounded man involved in the murderous assault by gun-runners on a ranch – the property of the family of their pursuer, cavalry agent Madison. The latter's younger siblings are determined that the injured party, now in their charge, lead them to the gang boss responsible; ultimately, the identity of either mystery man proves a surprise – and both, ironically, become involved with one of Madison's sisters (another is raped during the raid). Euro-Cult starlet Rosalba Neri appears unremarkably as a saloon hostess, and Madison's ex-flame.

This ranks up there as the worst movies of all time. No research or thought at all went into this movie. Action scenes were thrown in at random intervals which made no sense in the context of the movie. Items appeared and disappeared at random, etc. It's obvious that this was directed by a "stunt coordinator", who should go back to his old job. The Skeleton Man rode a horse throughout the movie, which amazingly, could change color at will. Either that, or someone thought the audience would all be colorblind and not notice. Blood would be on the actors in 1 scene and the very next, miraculously disappear and then reappear. Seems that everyone connected with this movie forgot to check for inconsistencies.

The slightly overlong set up episode of the previous week paid off in no uncertain terms with an episode that hit the heights. There was a certain deus ex machina flavour to the resolution of the cliffhanger, but it was a good start for all that. As is now common with this Doctor the moral, ethical and emotional considerations of his actions were centre stage. They were always there in the classic series, but they were a side issue, to be glossed over when the Doctor was in the heat of battle. This regeneration even says sorry to a cyberman during the battle! This episode finally shows Mickey embracing the heroic side that had been hinted at in previous episodes. His journey from zero to hero is complete, and it has been an utterly convincing one. With scares, humour and scenes that brought a lump to your throat this episode had everything. After much consideration I can finally say that the new series betters the classic series in every single respect. Coming from a die hard Whovian you can get no better recommendation than that.

This one of the best and funniest comedy series i have ever seen! All characters are brilliant.<br /><br />Mr. Slatt (David Bamber) is a very very irritated man, irritated by everything and anyone.<br /><br />He wants to do things and handle situations as best as he possibly can, but he never gets it right and only gets himself deeper and deeper in trouble. Not supported by his wife Janet, who only tries to get him deeper and deeper into the trouble he is getting himself into (and really does not need the help at all!).<br /><br />All characters are played/portrayed brilliantly. Just imagine sending your kid(s) to a school like this.<br /><br />It is unbelievable that people do not like it (maybe some don not get the many many plays on words, that are featured many times per episode).<br /><br />It is also unbelievable that there is still no DVD release of it. There are only 2 series!<br /><br />So please, release it, let it go! So the fans can and will enjoy it!<br /><br />Try it, you might just like it!!!<br /><br />Just some names & words from the series: Pumpman, Man Helmet, Hot Bitch, Mount Suzy, Travis Fellatio, Cockfoster, Arshead (and many many more).

Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory won me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he also shows signs of restrain. But a self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I thought it was a great film. Highly recommended.

THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noël-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.<br /><br />Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.<br /><br />I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.<br /><br />The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.<br /><br />With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.<br /><br />So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008.

One year after 'Love Thy Neighbour' made its I.T.V. debut, it followed the route taken by 'On The Buses' and 'Steptoe & Son' by graduating onto the big screen, in a picture made by Hammer Films. It opens with a stirring patriotic speech lauding the virtues of England's green and pleasant land, then cuts to a shot of Eddie and Bill walking up a street, arguing furiously. This escalates into a strange sequence of white and black neighbours vandalising their each other's homes. At least the original theme tune is retained ( even if it is sung by someone other than Stuart Gillies ).<br /><br />The local paper - 'The Gazette' - is holding a contest to find the best neighbours, the winners landing a Mediterranean cruise. Barbie suggests to Joan that they should enter. The thing is, can Bill and Eddie stay friends long enough to win it? That's the main part of the plot. The film is by and large episodic. One chunk is lifted directly from Season 1, namely Bill and Eddie going to the Club pretending to be on 'union business'. In reality they're going to see a stripper ( not meeting two girls ). Another portion of the movie has Bill, along with other black factory workers ( in the series he was the only one ), breaking a strike Eddie has helped bring about by various ploys ( including being smuggled in through the gates in beer barrels ). While another ( seemingly inspired by Powell and Driver's 'For The Love Of Ada' ) sees Eddie's talkative mother ( the magnificent Patricia Hayes ) getting friendly with Bill's father ( Charles Hyatt ).<br /><br />The climax to Episode 1 Season 1 reappears in an expanded form. Bill once more puts on paint and a towel to terrify Eddie, but his friends join him, and they dance round a drum containing a naked Booth, so that they can pretend to cook and eat him. Eddie then has to make his way home in the nude ( surprisingly, there is less nudity here than there was in Episode 2 Season 2 ).<br /><br />The film ends with the Reynolds and the Booths winning the 'Love Thy Neighbour' contest, and taking the cruise together, but there's an unexpected twist involving Joan's sex-mad brother Cyril ( James Beck - 'Private Walker' of 'Dad's Army' ), who is working as a steward.<br /><br />This is your typical '70's sitcom-into-movie, with all the faults usually prevalent in such films. The laughs are scattered about, and interest wanes after about half an hour. The cast is augmented by familiar faces such as Melvyn Hayes ( cast as 'Terry', a character from Episode 2 Season 1, played on that occasion by Leslie Meadows ), Bill Fraser ( as the factory manager ), Anna Dawson, Andria Lawrence ( who seems to have been in every '70's British comedy film, mostly cast as nymphomaniacs ), and Arthur English. The director, John Robins, was also responsible for the 'Man About The House' movie.<br /><br />Funniest moment - while Eddie sleeps in a quiet part of the factory, Bill paints his face black. The first he knows of it is when the manager's secretary screams in terror. The tables have been turned!

City Hall takes on the politics of a city rather than country, state or any sort of major political table. Granted it shines on New York City which is a huge political arena, especially nowadays, but it still goes for a smaller scale and puts the microscope on a few key players in a city wide scandal stumbled on by the mayor's right hand. Director Harold Becker is a director very familiar with elements of the thriller having done Mercury Rising, Malice, and Domestic Disturbance and I think in many ways he incorporates so many of the formulaic thriller genre that its almost to a fault. I mean City Hall is meant to be a political drama, not a thriller but instead when all is said and done and once you get to the meat and potatoes of the film it feels and looks like a thriller but a decent one at that with very important part of the recipe that immediately makes it stand out...what else...or rather who else...Al Pacino. The film begins by giving you a really good look at life in the mayoral office and the inner workings of the city. As the film continues it broadens its political spectrum to include a democratic boss, and his connections and then we are introduced to some of the goings on within the city. As events unfold a mystery begins and the political aspect is kind of left in the background but it still has a brilliant set up.<br /><br />I absolutely hate talking about Al Pacino. I mean even if ONCE he didn't give a good performance how could I ever say it? The man is acting royalty. There is just something brilliant about his entire demeanor. In City Hall Pacino plays the New York City mayor. He has a sense of duty and honor and immediately appears to be a very upstanding politician. He also delivers one of the most powerful and outright engaging speeches I've ever seen at the 'James Bone' Funeral. I re-watched that speech four times and the first time I watched Pacino give it, my mouth gaped open and I almost wanted to stand up and applaud. Its brilliantly written and brilliantly delivered by Pacino. John Cusack, who I really do enjoy as an actor, turns in a mediocre and overdone performance as the deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun. He is kind of the focus of the film and him and Pacino have good chemistry together when they are on screen but there is just something in this performance...he seems like he's trying too hard. His accent is just bizarre, and although he is supposed to be cutthroat and intimidating he doesn't get seem to pull it off. Maybe he was having an off film. Bridget Fonda, on her way out of her high point stardom does an okay job as attorney for police widows Marybeth Cogan. Her performance is very similar to Cusack's in that she just doesn't seem to find her groove with this character. Danny Aiello is terrific although his character is a little under explored as democratic boss with ties to the mafia Frank Anselmo. Martin Landau makes a decent cameo as Judge under scrutiny Walter Stern.<br /><br />The problem with City Hall is evident in my review of the characters and actors. Everyone is...okay. There is a lot of back story that they try to bring out without actually showing it and it unfortunately leaves you just a little bit confused about the whole conspiracy. And of course you have Al Pacino in a rather small supporting role but he's absolutely brilliant at it and outshines and overshadows every other actor in the film. It almost feels like maybe they are intimidated by him being on screen with them. So City Hall could have been this huge political epic drama/thriller but it felt cut and toned down to an average run of the mill one BUT it still has to be seen for Pacino and a different spin on the inner working of politics. If you just won't see this movie than find Pacino's speech at James Bone funeral because the word electrifying doesn't seem to give it justice but you can see what makes Al Pacino so incredible because in a mediocre film he pulls out this wallop of a speech and makes you feel it. If you're a John Cusack fan which I am...he's definitely done better but he is the main character and all in all he does get his justice. A decent movie but unfortunately potential loss. 7.5/10

William H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's "The Sopranos" in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since "Fargo." Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences.

I went into this movie thinking that it would be a neat football drama (in the same vein as Remember the Titans); however, I came away feeling like I had just attended a Ted Haggard sermon about the Rapture. The only thing that was missing was the request for a tithe at the end of the movie. Actually, one would probably get more out of a televangelist sermon than this poor excuse for entertainment. At least with the televangelist sermon, there are quotes from the Scripture rather than quotes from popularist self-help pulp. The plot was entirely too predictable to the point that anyone with a long-enough attention span could have laid out the entire plot within the first 15 minutes of the movie.

Watching QUINTET is not unlike watching a group of people playing a word game in Portuguese, or some other language you do not understand. You get the idea that they are playing a game, and if you watch closely enough, you may just begin to understand the rules. But, why bother, since it is clear you can't join in and you wouldn't want to if you had the chance.<br /><br />Director Robert Altman is not one to beg an audience to like his films, let alone understand them. Sometimes he lets you slip into the picture to be a part of the crowd, like in M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE and A WEDDING, films so full of hubbub and orchestrated chaos, one or two more bodies in the scene wouldn't make much of a difference. And other times, he seems to resent the fact that someone might even be watching his film; as in IMAGES or THREE WOMEN, where the stories are almost personal monologues made for an audience of one, Altman. With QUINTET, Altman seems to purposely dare anyone to become involved with the narrative. <br /><br />You can't depend on Altman to do the logical or the expected, which is sometimes the thing that makes his films so remarkably iconoclastic. But sometimes doing the unexpected isn't daring, just dumb. For instance, in QUINTET, we are introduced to a young woman who is apparently the last person on earth capable of getting pregnant, and she is, indeed, with child. This last ray of hope in a decaying society is almost immediately extinguished; Altman doesn't even wait until the end to play his last depressing card in this elaborate nihilistic and pessimistic tale. He lets us know how empty and meaningless life is right off the bat. Brave? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely. Devoid of a purpose, he tries to build a story on a rapidly melting iceberg, all the while reminding us how pointless the effort is. <br /><br />For the record, QUINTET, can at least claim to be prophetic. The story is centered on a treacherous game played by the various bored characters. It is a form of TAG (the assassination game): a handful of people target each other for elimination, each as a would-be assassin and each as a would-be victim. Two or more can form alliances to kill a third. As they die off, new targets are assigned. Whoever lives, wins. All of this happens at some exotic, inhospitable wasteland. It is, to a great extent, an extreme, sci-fi version of "Survivor" -- minus the commercial plugs and faked "reality."<br /><br />It is not a bad concept for a sci-fi epic. A post-apocalyptic setting, a microcosm of the world (the cast is pointedly multinational), a game where no on can be trusted or least not for long, and where no one really wins. Literally a cold war. A steely eyed director with a taste for dark humor and violent invention could have a field day. The mystery in QUINTET is not in the game or how it is played, but in why it exists it all. If the game "Quintet" is a metaphor for life, then Altman, seems to see nothing in the material but a chance to show life to be an empty, meaningless game -- a conclusion as obvious as it is untrue. Given the lively, albeit cynical nature of the rest of his diverse films, I don't believe that Altman believes in QUINTET either. And if Altman has no faith in his material, why should we?

Murder in Mesopotamia, I have always considered one of the better Poirot books, as it is very creepy and has an ingenious ending. There is no doubt that the TV adaptation is visually striking, with some lovely photography and a very haunting music score. As always David Suchet is impeccable as Hercule Poirot, the comedic highlight of the episode being Poirot's battle with a mosquito in the middle of the night, and Hugh Fraser is good as the rather naive Captain Hastings. The remainder of the cast turn in decent performances, but are careful not to overshadow the two leads, a danger in some Christie adaptations. Some of the episode was quite creepy, a juxtaposition of an episode as tragic as Five Little Pigs, an episode that I enjoyed a lot more than this one. What made it creepy in particular, putting aside the music was when Louise Leidner sees the ghostly face through the window. About the adaptation, it was fairly faithful to the book, but I will say that there were three things I didn't like. The main problem was the pacing, it is rather slow, and there are some scenes where very little happens. I didn't like the fact also that they made Joseph Mercado a murderer. In the book, I see him as a rather nervous character, but the intervention of the idea of making him a murderer, and under-developing that, made him a less appealing character, though I am glad they didn't miss his drug addiction. (I also noticed that the writers left out the fact that Mrs Mercado in the book falls into hysteria when she believes she is the murderer's next victim.) The other thing that wasn't so impressive was that I felt that it may have been more effective if the adaptation had been in the viewpoint of Amy Leatheran, like it was in the book, Amy somehow seemed less sensitive in the adaptation. On the whole, despite some misjudgements on the writers' behalf, I liked Murder in Mesopotamia. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

I sat down to watch this film with much trepidation and little hope. I didn't think it would be possible for this film to live up to its subject matter. But it absolutely did, and then some. First, I must say that Jared Harris did an extraordinary job as John Lennon. At times it seemed that Harris was channeling Lennon. The resemblance was often uncanny, and he clearly studied Lennon's mannerisms and vocal inflections. Aiden Quinn was quite good as McCartney, also bearing a striking resemblance to Macca, although he did occasionally trip over his Scouse accent.<br /><br />This work of fiction was well-written and well-directed. It was pure fantasy, of course, but sometimes I felt like a voyeur peeking through a keyhole at this reunion. The rooftop scene was especially moving, as McCartney told Lennon what he had never heard as a child--that he was worthy and important, and it could never be his fault that he was abandoned by his parents. I also enjoyed the scene in the park where the pair of them danced with absolute abandon to the reggae band!<br /><br />My one complaint would be this: I am not so sure that John was as caustic as he was portrayed in the film at this stage in his life. He had settled in to his domestic situation quite nicely, and he was actually known to be quite friendly when approached by fans. Only a few years later, he was very friendly when he was first approached by his assassin for an autograph on the day he was murdered.<br /><br />Mostly this film served to stir up those feelings again about what might have been had John lived a bit longer. I am quite sure the Beatles would have come back together at some stage. And I am quite certain that Lennon and McCartney would still be friends today.<br /><br />Well done, VH1. I will watch it again and again.<br /><br />

First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.<br /><br />If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times. <br /><br />Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.

The third film I got to watch at the philly film fest was this outstanding drama from Japan. After breaking out of prison nine escaped convicts plan to find the "key to the universe" that a tenth convict who didn't break out told them about. Along the way we get to know each of these men fairly well. Each has their own dreams. For much of the movie it seems to be mostly a comedy, but a shift takes place that the film ends up a tragedy. All of the actors give great performances. I can't say much more without spoiling the film, but suffice it to say that you end up feeling for some of these individuals. At 2 hours, this film is a tad to long, but good none the less. I have no qualms recommending it with the warning that it does have a bit unsettling violence for the tender-hearted. Toshiaki Toyoda hit a home-run this time out, and it makes me want to search out his prior films as well as look forward eagerly to his future ones.<br /><br />My Grade: A

OK. Not bad movie making if it were from an original script. BUT IT IS NOT!<br /><br />Which part of "in this story there are no women, except for Foulata and Gagoola" introduction by Haggard did the producers, directors and writers not understand? I mean, it is pretty plain English. I understood it at age 10!. The beauty of KSM is that it contains a spectacular description of three different worlds, the colonial Africa, the unforgiving desert and Kukuanaland, a hidden and isolated kingdom. That should be more than enough for even the most mediocre of producers to work with. But, nooo, they have to throw "romance" into it. Pathetic. Suggestion to all you poor souls who actually thought this would be close to the book. Give it up. Until a Peter Jackson wannabe comes along and "does it right" you may as well keep re-reading the tome. BTW, there is a sequel book (actually a pre-quel) called Allan's wife. It gives background to the story of Quatermain. It is a bit creepy but good.

Alain Resnais films are uncanny in the way that they aren't really edited for continuity, but instead the shot seems to finish right where a memory has edited. Love unto Death is at times a quiet existential drama and a roundly creative magical realist movie, and either way treats the audience to a whole new aspect of the Eros/Thanatos relationship... or perhaps creates a new relationship, that of Agape/Thanatos.<br /><br />The beginning is like a bizarre surrealist horror movie. A woman desperately runs around the house while a man lays dying in his bed--did she kill him, or what happened? Soon that tension is dissolved as a doctor arrives and pronounces him dead, but from there a newer, stranger drama begins: the man wakes up, and after being dead the woman and man fall in love to actually quite tragic consequences. Meanwhile, their friends, who are both priests, watch on and submit their own debate into the nature of love, faith, and devotion.<br /><br />Resnais always seems to have some device to make these sorts of narratives work, and what's so amazing about his films is that those devices always work. In this case, Resnais intercuts the scenes with shots of snow falling to an arousing orchestral score, which fades off and bleeds into the subsequent shots that continue the story. Trapped in this elegiac aside periodically, the film develops a rhythm not too unlike an epic poem, and I got strange flashbacks to Dante's Divine Comedy from this one, despite the lack of direct reference within the movie. Resnais is known as a very poetic filmmaker but this extends past just the cinepoem structure to something that forces a degree of introspection in the viewer, which has the possibility to bring to surface some odd recollections. Memory-narrative, Resnais creates.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

A cheap exploitation film about a mothers search for her daughter who has been kidnapped by people who make snuff porno films. The trail leads the mother all over Europe as she searches for her child and we in the audience struggle to stay asleep.<br /><br />This is one of the countless soft-core sleaze films that are made for people who want the excitement of porno with out the stigma or danger of it showing up on their credit card bill.Personally I'd rather have the stigma since those films tend to be more interesting and honest about what we're seeing. This is suppose to be a sexy thriller but its not. Mostly its people talking about things followed by lots of walking from place to place and lead to lead.Periodically through out the film various people get undressed and everything has more than a touch of S&M to the proceedings. The violence and fetish material is of the sort to provoke laughter rather than horror or even excitement, its all so incredibly fake. Worse there is not even enough nudity to keep it interesting. (Basically par for the course for many of these films)<br /><br />You'll forgive my lack of details but it simply is a dull boring film that I stayed with to the end hoping for something remotely prurient to occur, but there was nothing. The most interesting thing was the blonde haired villainess with the huge over bite and nose the size of a Buick. I watched her with morbid fascination wondering what she had looked like as a young girl and wondering whether she had had plastic surgery, not the type of things you should be thinking about in a gripping thriller.<br /><br />Avoid.

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS For about the last four years I've been a keen fan of Ali G. Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly a very funny and intelligent guy and, in my view, his best creation is Borat who's as funny as Hell and quite shameless in what he does and says to people.<br /><br />Anyway, to the movie. I didn't bother paying money to see this in the cinema; I suppose because I didn't expect a lot but when I hired the DVD recently, I found the whole thing pretty sad. The best part of Ali's taking the mickey out of others was largely missing and the script an plot was pretty damned awful; hooking all the car batteries together to blow a safe - REALLY!!?? <br /><br />This movie goes to show I think that some things can run for too long and definitely don't translate to the big screen. The movie also had that syrupy sweet ending that I've come to expect from British films. Where have all the good British movie making ideals gone to? That said, there were the odd very funny moments such as the dog in Ali's bed and Ali's audience with HM the Q with the "Shaven haven - RESPECT" remark.<br /><br />So, in summary, I am an Ali G and Borat fan and I have enjoyed many of his interviews (notably the one with Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) but this movie fell really flat with me. If there's to be another movie, I hope it's a whole lot better than this lot of old tripe.<br /><br />Weasel100 <br /><br />Canberra, Australia

This film revolves as much around Japanese culture as it does the lives of one modern Japanese family. Physical contact is frowned upon for those over 7 (especially in public) hence all that bowing instead of hugging even when you are close friends/ relatives. Ballroom dancing involves putting your arms around someone else and that in public too! Never the less Ballroom dancing is (on the quite) immensely popular. People who do Ballroom dancing in Japan are viewed a bit like nudists in the west... many more would like to than do but are inhibited by the culture. A delightful family film, which any amateur dancer would enjoy for the dance sequences alone. I understand that it was more popular than Titanic in Japan. I guess the Japanese are just like the rest of us - they like to be hugged too.

I remember this show from Swedish television. I was only 7 years of age and it scared me beyond belief.<br /><br />I would love to revisit this series and see if it was just as excellent as remember though i suspect my taste and demands have changed.<br /><br />Although this was released before alien and a plethora of other space-thrillers i suspect that it has its root in scary movies from the 50:s and the political climate of the 70:s. When i think of it, this was a real sci-fi, a movie trying to discuss scientific and political questions about who we are and what we are. The term sci-fi has since then become bleak and come to be the term for any movie that has space-ships in them.

But I got over it. To me, it seemed that even the Author of the book favored Caroline. I felt so sorry for the character Louise, and she was constantly compared with Esau who was evil, I just felt the comparison was a bit harsh and un-realistic. Really though, the movie was bad. I wouldn't really see it unless you're ready for a big let down.

Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.<br /><br />Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage!

I saw UZUMAKI about a year ago and was mesmerized. The only Japanese horror film I had seen before this one was KWAIDAN (Which I proudly own on DVD, by the way), superb! The idea of a town being absorbed by spirals sounds exactly like something out of Lovecraft. Certainly it reminds one of SHADOW OVER INNSMOUTH, of the inhabitants slowly turning into monstrosities (in this case giant snails). And who can forget the washing machine sequence? I hope we will soon see this one available on Region 1 DVD (I see that Sundance has recently screened it on US TV, hopefully they'll do it again very soon) so that we can all see it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!!

I can honestly tell you that this movie is the most awesome movie ever!!! If you are in the mood for a comedy, I totally recommend this movie! So, here's the summary. There is this girl(Nikki) who is fourteen and a half and she goes on a vacation with her father(Andre) whom she hasn't seen for about two years. She expects the vacation to be totally boring, until she meets this boy(Ben), who is much older than she is. So, to try to impress him she says that she isn't on vacation with her father, but her lover. This is a hysterical movie from beginning to end, and I highly suggest it. So rent it and enjoy!!!

For those who like their films full of exploding planets and extreme violence, this is definitely not one to see. In fact, there is very little plot at all (or, at least, very little that could not be summarised in a few seconds: A meets B. Mr A falls for Mrs B and has an affair with her. A and B then fall in love and wonder (at great length) whether to have an affair themselves).<br /><br />This is Cantonese Visconti. Story there is none, but what you DO get is a succession of wonderful images and poignantly trivial music which convey the slow passage of the central characters' emotions. There is also the chance to see one of the world's most beautiful women in a succession of stunningly elegant outfits. For my money, it's worth seeing for that alone. How could this woman ever have been an action heroine? She looks as though she has stepped straight out of the pages of Vogue.

As I saw the movie I was really shocked to see what the 60's was about. I know I may be wrong about some things, but it seemed like the 60's really had an effect on people of the time. Some people said they would want to go back to the 60's. From what I saw I would say yes for the excitement and no for the outcome. But that's my opinion.

There are some bad movies out there. Most of them are rather fun. "Criminally Insane 1" was one of those flicks. So bad that it was enjoyable and had re-watch value to it. "Criminally Insane 2" has to be one of the worst movies ever made and coming from me, that's saying a lot because I am not the type of person to say anything is the worst. But trust me, this was just completely awful and running just 1 hour is 1 hour too long.<br /><br />The movie has a rather incoherent storyline, but who cares about story when all you want to see is a big fat woman running around killing people because she isn't being fed. Well, you don't see that in this movie, except for all of the flashback sequences that are from the first one. The new storyline could have been really funny with Ethel being sent to a halfway house and murdering everyone in there, but nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the movie and at that point you are already falling asleep.<br /><br />The camera work in this movie is just atrocious. This literally reminds me of something I shot with friends of mine back when I was 15. The sound quality is something else as you can't understand a word most of the characters are saying. To give an example of how bad it is, go into a New York Subway and try to understand what is being said over the loud speakers, that is what this movie sounds like. Not that it matters what they are talking about anyway because the actors are about as dry as a dead piece of wood.<br /><br />Now I know that saying this is the worst movie out there is pretty harsh but words can't describe just how bad this movie is. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself. 1/10

This film is enjoyable if you like poverty row, public domain films from the first half of the 20th century, or are a fan of amateur film-making. The film splices together public domain thrillers together along with newly shot scenes in which the "actors" (With the sole exception of Redfield doing a near dead on Lugosi rip, all of the "performers" are simply dreadful!) attempt to interact with the stock footage. The "New" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!). As near as I can figure out the plot has something to do with a bunch of strangers being brought together on an island for a will reading(?) This film, while boasting a creative premise ala 'Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid', is a technical and creative wreck. In one dreadfully over long sequence and injured sailor on a ship describes an abortive trip to 'Fog Island', whatever that is! The "flashback" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality. Unrelated scenes from 'The Lost World' (1925), The Most Dangerous Game (1932), White Zombie (1932), Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla (1952) and some other poverty row productions. This is done over an incredibly bad voice over which seems to have too much room echo as if the audio was recorded on a cheap home video camera.<br /><br />The "filmmakers" seem to think that they are paying homage to the great actors of yesteryear by giving characters the surnames of famous actors (Carradine, Zucco, Ouspenskaya, etc..etc..). This tactic was done cleverly, as well as subtly in 'Final Destination' here it's just obnoxious! Bizarre, and painfully unfunny, jokes about Spiderman, Dracula, and Superman abound. Even the old as dirt 'Dewey, Cheetam and Howe' lawyer reference is used here-this was old and tired when The Three Stooges used it in the 1930s.<br /><br />The film stock and audio, don't match scene to scene, and dozens of different sources are used for Lugosi. The finale effect is that he seems to be getting, older, younger, older, thinner, heavier, younger and older again minute by minute. Oddly the film didn't use this as a comedy subplot and squanders a good chance for comedy.<br /><br />Truth be told though, It was great fun to watch this late at night in bed. Maybe thats what they wanted to happen!

Yes, some people have said that this movie was a waste of money, but i'm the kind of die hard dragon/world-ending/holy crap action movie fan.<br /><br />But if you take it from my stand point this movie had some of the best action sences were pretty dang good. But its that kind of movie that everything just fell tougher at the right time, or just about when evil was trumph something fell in to save them at the right time. Though there were some funny lines and gangs throughout the movie which surprised me.<br /><br />The 3d graphics were pretty damn good. I mean for this kind of movie the 3d effects were GREAT!!!! Big battle that was shown in the trailers live up to whatever hype the movie had. The fight between good and evil at the end was, I have to to say could have been longer and slightly better, it was still pretty good.<br /><br />Now on to the parts that i think could have been better. The beginning was pretty good showing the parts that lead up to the big battles. I mean if you don't really want to go see this movie in theaters then at least this is a DVDer...<br /><br />overall i loved the movie,but the plot just fell into place to fast and fit tougher just to well.

OK. Is Barney the best children's show of all time? Of course not. But in some of the comments left by other members of IMDb you would think it was a multi million dollar production with high class actors and a ridiculous budget for special effects. Well guess what? It's Barney for God's sake. He shows children good behavior, good manors and that it's OK to be who you are. For those of you who find him annoying that is because you are not five years old and the show was not meant for you. To the IMDb member who wrote the review on the first page I think you may have gone a little too far. Did you actually describe a Sesame Street character as "down to Earth"? Grow up everyone, this is a great show for preschoolers and actually does help children learn in a fun and creative way.

Incredible. Does it get any dumber than this? Not a chance. The stupidity in this movie would shame even Ed Wood, De Palma, and Woo. If the first part in the series had mediocre dialog and the second one had bad dialog, then this one has cretinous dialog. Amazing. But this time the story has been lowered to the level of the dialog, too. In spite of the acting and the dialog, I liked the first two films, but "Cube Zero" will surely kill the franchise. The utterly moronic plot so obviously stems from the pen of a frustrated left-winger.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if such leftists even themselves realize just how anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship they are. In this movie they obviously target the US – a democracy. Why don't they target Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Zimbabwe etc. in anti-military movies? Sure, most of these places are hardly likely to produce a cube like this any time soon, but that's beside the point. It's obvious: writers of garbage like this actually admire these kinds of regimes, whether they are aware of it or not. I would even go as far as to say that ANYONE who adamantly attacks US foreign policies all the time, has anti-democratic beliefs in his core.<br /><br />Back to the movie: apart from being so far-fetched that it isn't even funny any more, the film has many obvious illogicalities. For example, for some reason the two men who supervise the cube have done it for a while and are oblivious to the pain and sadism that the project entails, yet the first one than the other suddenly turn against the system! Anyone who has any idea at all about human nature will see right through this idiocy. Or how about that cretinous character, the one-eyed evil bureaucrat who talks as if he's in a bad Mel Brooks comedy. In fact, as soon as this creature appears the movie loses ALL seriousness and hence any chance of being exciting: it really does become a comedy.

What distinguishes some of the 'Lone Star' films (and many others in western and adventure films of the early thirties) was their lack of what we recognize as formulaic story telling. To be sure they had good vs. evil (the basic element of any Western), boy meets girl and some stock characters, such as the old rancher and his beautiful daughter or grand daughter, and sometimes the evil banker or other businessman, but the way the action played out was often different from film to film.<br /><br />'The Lawless Frontier' features Earl Dwire in his big star turn (not) as (for some inexplicable reason) Pandro Zanti, a 'half Apache, half American posing as a Mexican who speaks the language fluently.' His biggest posing as a Mexican seemed to be his outrageous mariachi clothes. The only plot seems to be that he wants to steal Ruby, the granddaughter of "Old Dusty" (Gabby Hayes). When meeting her for the first time, Dwire gives her a long once over look that puts him in the big leagues with sexual predators. You'd think that because the opening scene shows Zanti killing John (Wayne) Tobin's father off camera, it would play a bigger part in the film. It doesn't. Too much chasing back and forth between heroes and villains.<br /><br />We get many good stunts, though, from Yakima Canutt, including pulling Ruby up on his horse when he rides by, jumping on 'renegades' and knocking them off their horses, a horse leap off a cliff into a lake, and even the same slide down the sluice sequence that was in "The Lucky Texan" (1934), although this time the Mighty Yak uses a body surfing log instead of straddling a tree bough, and its inclusion is just as illogical this time too, since they are in a desert.<br /><br />The high point is clearly John Wayne's measured and methodical well photographed walk across the desert after the fleeing and stumbling Zanti with those fantastic basalt cliffs of Red Rock Canyon (seen in countless serials, westerns and science fiction 'moon' movies) framed behind him. No final gun duel at fifty paces with the heroine running from the wooden steps of the bar to embrace and kiss the conquering hero in this movie! When John Wayne finally catches up with him, Zanti drinks poisoned water from a waterhole and dies.<br /><br />After a couple too many chase sequences, Zantai's gang is finally captured in Dusty's cabin, emerging one by one from behind a swivel cabinet that apparently leads to a canyon, now blocked off by having been dynamited. No riding off into the sunset or obligatorily kissing the girl: The final shot is Ruby, now Mrs. John Tobin, on the telephone to the now Sheriff John Tobin, "What would Sheriff Tobin like for dinner?" The film also has poor lighting and editing at the beginning, the pacing is slow, some parts with the sheriff cause it to drag, and the horse chases fill up the film. So despite the different and unusual elements, it comes off as one of the weaker Lone Stars.

Let's see: there's a civil war, a lost city, a talking gorilla, some regular gorillas, a previously unknown species of killer albino gorilla, the most powerful laser ever known to man, a *lot* of diamonds lying mined and loose in the sand, attack hippos, an active volcano, and a hot air balloon packed in a suitcase in a downed plane. That's not too much, is it? I've had more coherent fever dreams ("... and then the Romanian guy picked up a bunch of diamonds, because this was a lost city that he had been looking for or something, but then the mean gorillas that we had seen before came out of nowhere and ate him. Now somehow the talking gorilla was back from visiting the regular gorillas, and, as a kind of earthquake or volcano started, the woman industrialist/doctor built a gun using a laser and this big diamond she had just found in her dead fiance's hand..."). It's a blast if you're looking for more ammunition against the pernicious influence of Michael Crichton in American entertainment (and hence world entertainment), and if you keep firmly in mind the extent to which this cynical and half-hearted attempt fell on its face at the boxoffice. But, sadly, the men responsible -- Crichton, sceenwriter John Patrick Shanley, director Frank Marshall -- probably never lost a dime. Shame on them, and I mean that. 1/10

I'm the type of guy who loves hood movies from New Jack City to Baby Boy to Killa Season, from the b grade to the Hollywood. but this movie was something different. i am no hater and this movie was kinda enjoyable. but some bits were just weird. well the acting wasn't to good, compared to Silkk The Shockers performance in Hot Boyz (quite good) and Ice-T in new Jack and SVU (great). the scene where Corrupt (Ice-T) kills the wanna be Jamaican dude he says something and lights himself on fire burning both Ice-T and the other dude, this kills the Jamaican, however Ice-T is unharmed, very similar to Ice's other movie Urban Menace (which stars both of these actors) were Snoops character is supernatural, however after this there is nothing suggested that Corrupt is like a demon. When MJ (Silkk) gets stabbed at first he struggling but after that he fights normally and was stabbed in the thigh-WITH OUT BLOOD. and when MJ confesses killing a cop cos the cop was beating up his friend Benny was weird, Benny isn't introduced in this movie and the scene isn't in the film. it does hold weight to the fact why Corrupt wants to kill MJ but is still makes u scratch your head. wen Jody writes a letter to Miss Jones character explaining what happened to them afterwords doesn't mention what happen 2 other main characters MJ and Lisa. the film did show the horror and poverty of the ghetto-which plagues the lives of Latinos and Blacks word wide-was a good part of the film, even though the clip of the projects was re-used thousands of times. and the scene where Miles kills the Latino brother by crashing his bike at full speed (not wearing a helmet) and running into my Latino brothers car would of killed him. the movie was similar to the film Urban Menace and half the actors were in both of these movies as well as the production team. it was OK tho. but me being from poverty i love hood films, however if u don't love em like i do Don't WATCH IT. only thing saving me from walking out is it reminded me of the first movie i made which was made with 100 dollars, and my love of the genre.<br /><br />Nathaniel Purez

The only thing more full of holes than this movie's premise is its script. Flatliners is the ideal showcase for Joel Schumacher's glorious, flamboyant, brazen lack of talent. The plot is totally illogical but super fake-ponderous and everything is art-directed within an inch of its life in the most clichéd, overheated way. I love how the med school autopsy room is a cavernous vaulted marble mausoleum low-lit in red with huge Rembrandt paintings hanging from the walls. I love how Keifer Sutherland drives a canvas-backed army jeep. No one in Joel Schumacher's movies lives in an un-eccentric manner. It's always an alternate universe where everyone is young and painfully hip, but hip strictly and obsessively according to an out-of-touch middle-aged billionaire man-child's idea of hip. And holy crap! The part where Baldwin brother #16 dies and comes back to life and then is haunted by all the women he's slept with who intone "I'll call you" and "I just need some space" is the funniest friggin' thing in the whole universe!!!! What kind of a world do we live in where Joel Schumacher gets to keep having people throw money at him? "Flatliners" made me want to review the man's entire oeuvre solely for the kind of high-quality yuks contained therein.

Soapdish may go down as one of the single most under-rated movies ever made.<br /><br />A stellar, unselfish cast who understood exactly where the movie was going and the roles they played in it. While everyone hammed it up, there was no one-upmanship. Kline showed wit and great physical comedy, Goldberg and Downey knew how to carry on a funny conversation while someone else was talking, I could just go on.<br /><br />Do not pass this movie by!

Nicely and intelligently played by the two young girls, Mischa Barton as Frankie, and Ingrid Uribe as Hazel, although the plot is rather a stretch of the imagination. Young Hazel running for mayor seems out of place, to be honest.<br /><br />While the acting is well done by all concerned the movie tends to lack a genuine atmosphere of drama. Perhaps we've grown to expect gritty reality in movies, rather like comparing Pollyanna to How Green Was My Valley! Never mind, each of them are good in their own way.<br /><br />I do admire Joan Plowright even if her role is somewhat subdued here. Middle of the road entertainment well suited for younger viewers, and how nice at times to be exposed to fine classical music which is almost a rarity!<br /><br />I find this movie to be a welcomed change as it reflects quieter, thoughtful values for the growing up years, and no violence thank goodness. A warm family film to enjoy.

Cage plays a drunk and gets high critically praise. Elizabeth Shue Actually has to do a love seen with the most unattractive and overrated piece of dung flesh in Hollywood. I literally vomited while watching this film. Of course I had the flu, but that does not mean this film did not contribute to the vomit in the kamode. <br /><br />Why can't Nick Cage play something he can really pull off like a bad actor. Nick Cage who be brilliant in a role as a bad actor. Heck nobody could do it better.<br /><br />The search begins for Nick's contract with Lucifer or was it Lou Cipher from "Night Train To Terror".

In Victorian times a father is separated from his family when he is falsely accused of treason and they are sent to live in the country. The children adapt to their new situation, make friends, and enlist the help of a kind old man they wave to on the train to help reunite their family.<br /><br />Actors who direct movies are often not very good at it. Jeffries however, the great veteran actor of dozens of British comedy classics, is one of the few exceptions. His brilliant conception (he also wrote the script, from the novel by E. Nesbit) of a classic British children's story is what raises this film to art. Whilst the story may be highly idealised, the wonderful performances and the fabulously evocative Yorkshire dales settings combine to make a truly memorable movie. The photography by Arthur Ibbetson is the definition of good movie-making - not a shot is wasted in telling the story but at the same time the images combine to create a fabulously romantic atmosphere. Agutter is simply perfect as the kind-hearted Bobbie (okay, I fell in love with her at an early age, but I defy anyone to disagree) and Cribbins, whose comic acting pedigree is on a par with Jeffries, is unforgettable as Perks the humble-yet-proud railway porter. This is a film out of time; romantic, charming, hugely enjoyable and with a beautifully naive sense of good-hearted kindness towards all.

i have had this movie, in the back of my head sense i saw it. i have wanted to tell people about it time and again, but never remembered. now i found it. now finally, i can tell people precisely what the absolute worst, most crappy movie i have ever seen in my entire life, bar none is.<br /><br />this movie is complete trash, and is unfit for a garbage dump. all prints and other copy's of this movie should be rounded up loaded into a large rocket, and launched into the sun. only the purifying heat and pressure of the sun might be able to purify the materials this movie is stored on, so that they can be useful to the universe again.<br /><br />i like movies. i like bad movies. and yes this is an opinion. but this movie was pure trash, filth, and excrement of some beast that should never be seen let alone named by man.<br /><br />i would rather watch a Uwe Boll Movie marathon than watch this movie. and i hate Uwe Boll's films.

Billy Chung Siu Hung's (the bloody swordplay film Assassin from 1993) film Love To Kill (Hong Kong, 1993) is among the strongest products of the Category III boom that inhabited the HK cinema in early nineties. It consisted of films with strong sex, nudity and violence, more or less gratuitous and shock valued only. Love To Kill definitely belongs to the "more" category with some unforgettable ideas and pieces of celluloid sickness.<br /><br />The HK psycho Anthony Wong (from the award winning The Untold Story by Herman Yau, from the same year) plays a business man and a husband who likes to torture, humiliate and rape his young wife (Elizabeth Lee Mei Fung) who for some reason doesn't leave him and save herself and their little son from the disturbed tormentor. A policeman (Danny Lee, the famous police character actor from films like Dr. Lamb (1992) by Billy Tang (and co-directed by Lee) and The Killer (1989) by John Woo to name just a few) however sees the problem and starts to protect the wife and the son but Anthony naturally doesn't like this at all, and leads it all into the typical ultra-mean spirited and graphic finale during a rain storm.<br /><br />The film is almost completely without any serious merits as it's just a piece of exploitation in order to cash in when these kind of films were so popular. The imagery and happenings are something never found in the Western cinema, at least in mainstream, and it all becomes even more mind-blowing when some/most taboos for Westerners, like violence and perversions witnessed by a child, are broken in these films so often that reading the plotlines alone would make most viewers feel sick, and that goes perfectly especially for this film too.<br /><br />The film still has a rather interesting and creepy soundtrack in the tradition of the mentioned Dr. Lamb which practically started the whole boom in 1992. Usually the music and soundtrack in HK films is interesting and adds to the imagery, especially in these terror films. Also the cinematography is worth mentioning as the film bathes, especially in the finale, in blue colors and camera lenses (as does Assassin, too), and the raging storm is captured nicely on the camera. Otherwise there's nothing that would rate the film any higher other than on the nastiness-meter.<br /><br />The actors and actresses are talented and professional and so don't make the film any worse with their acting. Still the film has the usual HK humor in it which makes the sick goings-on even sicker as some "humor" is thrown into the soup. That includes some jokes about Danny Lee's erection and so on..Something that could never be found in the Western "serious" films either. And that thing usually destroys mane otherwise noteworthy HK films as the humor is just so obvious way and attempt to entertain the audience and masses.<br /><br />The film has a very high outrageousness level as it has numerous scenes depicting the abuse of Wong's wife in various ways. She gets raped and molested, beaten and kicked by her husband. We also get to see some flashbacks from Wong's own childhood which turns out to be equally violent as his own father killed too and turned his young son into what he is now. These flashback scenes, mostly at the end of the film, include also some totally unexpected experiences as the imagery is speeded up (for example the hits of an axe) and that creates completely insane and mean spirited atmosphere to the scene. Again something that only HK exploitation makers seem to be able to come up with. The ending itself includes plenty of sudden and shocking gore as the madman wields his axe and meets also some nails, for example, on his furious way.<br /><br />The film is also genuinely pretty "suspicious" in my opinion as the violence and terror is realistically painful and deals with things that should NEVER be taken as entertainment, mostly I mean rape. The version I saw (I've seen two versions) includes a very long and completely nauseating rape scene that just tries to be as sadistic as possible. I'm not sure does the HK audience really like imagery like this but I think no one with some sense for morality in films/entertainment would never accept or make something like it. Women get brutalized and killed in the most sadistic and low ways so that the fates of the men seem almost tame when compared to the females.<br /><br />The other version I saw, the newly released DVD in HK (without subtitles) has this "table brutality" scene in a much longer form than the subtitled Taiwanese DVD which is otherwise identical to the HK version. I've also heard that the old HK Laserdisc is different from these two and since the end credits are filled with scenes and images not found in the actual film, it is impossible to say how "uncut" versions these that have been released or shown theatrically are. Obviously plenty of footage has been cut out, possibly even before the theatrical release.<br /><br />The film is written by Law Gam Fai and Lau Wing Kin, the former having written also films like Dr. Lamb, The Untold Story and Gunmen (Kirk Wong, 1988) but out of his other films that I've seen, Love to Kill is the most gratuitous. Dr. Lamb and The Untold Story both are very brutal and violent but have also some attempt to some criticism towards the authorities and men in general as how it is easy to turn into a beast when chasing or fighting one. The harrowing torture imagery of The Untold Story, the victim being the criminal, is very strong and definitely has its impact to change something that may be rotten in the society and among the police for example. But there's none of this in Love to Kill, it is just honest, calculated and fastly made exploitation which is, by the way, produced by a veteran director Kirk "Organized Crime & Triad Bureau (1993), Crime Story (1993)" Wong!<br /><br />Love to Kill earns no more than 2/10 from me as I don't have too high appreciation on films like this. (HK) Cinema is meant to be and can be more and films like Love to Kill are only commercial parasites living among the real pieces of the art.

I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got "Spanish Judges" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.<br /><br />The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who "claims" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her "Mars Girl". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.<br /><br />There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.<br /><br />I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the "Hot Shots!" movies. But good review.<br /><br />Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.<br /><br />8/10

In the colonies we're not all that familiar with Arthur Askey, so I nearly skipped this film (which had its TCM preview recently) on account of the negative comments here on his appearance in "Ghost Train" -- which I expected to be thoroughly annoying. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to find myself laughing audibly. The physical aspects of Askey's comedy and his timing when delivering a line suggest what you'd get if Charlie Chaplin and Woody Allen had a baby. There is no comparing him to Bud Abbott or any of the other usual purveyors of comic relief who turn up in films of this genre. One can feel, moreover, the thread connecting Askey to British comedy 30 years later; at least it is clear from an American point of view that he has more in common with the Monty Python troupe than with any of his counterparts over here. As for the rest of the film -- the more movies you've seen, the more likely you'll guess at the ending, but it is still quite entertaining and atmospheric and worth waiting for its next appearance.

Ahh, yes, the all-star blockbuster. Take a so-so concept, stuff it into a script and load it down with every single freakin' special effect that the Wizards of Hollyweird can conjure up, then round up the usual suspects: hot up-and-comers, has-beens, wanna-be's and never-wuzzes, and stick 'em all in ensemble roles of various sizes in front of the unforgiving eye of the cameras. And hope to gawd that some of them aren't too old to remember their lines.<br /><br />Leave it to the bishops of Box Office to apply the concept to horror films at last, as was the case with the post-EXORCIST thriller THE SENTINEL. Novelist Jeffrey Konvitz decided to try and one-up Ira Levin's ROSEMARY'S BABY scenario of creepy (and ultimately satanic) neighbors in a New York brownstone. The result was a controversial best-seller that some claimed bordered on the plagiaristic, and an equally controversial, top-heavy/star-laden vehicle co-written and directed by DEATH WISH's Michael Winner, but for many unsettlingly different reasons.<br /><br />Cristina Raines (NASHVILLE) plays successful model Alison Parker, who is pretty much over- stressed and over-worked, (I won't add "overpaid." I mean she IS a model, so that would be redundant), not just by her 24/7 schedule, by also by her insistent , 'wanna-get-married- right-NOW' boyfriend Michael (Chris Sarandon of DOG DAY AFTERNOON and the classic SOB.I.G. movie LIPSTICK). One of the ways she decides to try to get away from it all is to move into her own place; a big, beautiful brownstone in Manhattan which she's able to get dirt-cheap, (that should've been the BIG red flag - cheap real estate in New York!), from the mysteriously accommodating broker Miss Logan (Golden Age screen vet Ava Gardner, fresh from the storm drain in EARTHQUAKE.)<br /><br />Things seem fine at first, but ah, yes...then comes the noises and the loud pounding from the apartment upstairs at night. And what about the REALLY strange neighbors like Gerde (Sylvia Miles) and Sandra (a VERY early Beverly D'Angelo), the nice "single friends" (read: lesbians) living together, and kindly old Mr. Charles Chazen (a nicely creepy Burgess Meredith), who seems maybe a little too concerned with Alison's welfare? And that's not to mention other assorted squirrelly cohabitants (You'll never hear the phrase "Black and white cat, black and white cake" again without wanting to laugh milk through your nose and possibly vomit simultaneously.) Especially the old blind priest living in the penthouse...<br /><br />Things really start to go downhill when an apparition-laden nightmare of Alison's morphs into a grisly murder, (in one of the movie's most underwear-staining scares), and both Alison and Michael, with some assistance from Alison's BFF, Jennifer (Deborah Raffin), begin to piece together the puzzle that reveals the brownstone's dark origins, as well as the murderous agenda of its other-worldly inhabitants, not to mention Alison's connection to them, which as it turns out is anything but coincidental.<br /><br />Although there's nothing controversial about the overstuffed cast, which seems to feature every actor of diverse genres looking for work at the time, (Arthur Kennedy, Jose Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Eli Wallach, John Carradine, and even early appearances by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Nana Visitor!) Winner and company went back to bombastic basics and pulled a "Tod Browning"...by enlisting real-life physically-challenged actors to appear in THE SENTINEL'S climactic everything-and-everybody-goes-to-Hell sequence, which I guess any ballsy director would do, finding himself unable to access Linda Blair and a case of green-pea soup. It does definitely leave you with arctic fingers playing your spinal cord like a zither, knowing this juicy little tidbit of info as you watch. And it does feature a technique to which filmmakers have only begun to return very recently: live on-set makeup and special effects that don't involve CGI, (which was pretty much non-existent back then.)<br /><br />THE SENTINEL has that kitschy, late-Seventies cheese factor, but does manage to distinguish itself from time to time with some gasp-inducing moments like the one mentioned above, not to mention that queasy feeling of dread that horror writers find it easy to play upon, of isolation and things that go bump-and-shriek in the night. After all, what living-single-in- the-big-city person hasn't lain in bed in the dark, and listened intently to the sounds of what they HOPE is "the building settling?"<br /><br />Konvitz followed up THE SENTINEL with an inevitable sequel, THE GUARDIAN (not to be confused with the William Friedkin supernatural thriller namesake), that was never adapted for the screen. =sigh of relief=

This is one cheap looking movie! A stripper keeps getting attacked and raped by zombies and no one believes her. She goes to the police who also rape her. She finally finds a kid who was also attacked by the zombies and they trace the zombies back to 'The Zombie Master'. The fact that Stephanie Beaton stars as the stripper is the only reason to watch this film.

I read all the reviews here AFTER watching this piece of cinematic garbage and it took me at least 2 pages to find out that somebody else didn't think that this appallingly unfunny montage WASN'T the acme of humour in the 70s or indeed in any other era! If this isn't the least funny set of sketch *comedy* I've ever seen it'll do till it comes along. Half of the skits had already been done (and infinitely better) by acts such as Monty Python and Woody Allen... If I was to say that a nice piece of animation that lasts about 90 seconds is the highlight of this film it would still not get close to summing up just how mindless and drivel-ridden this waste of 75 minutes is. Seminal comedy? Only in the world where seminal really DOES mean semen. Scatological humour? Only in a world where scat IS actually feces. Precursor jokes? Only if by that we mean that this is a handbook of how NOT to do comedy. Tits and bums and the odd beaver. Nice...if you are a pubescent boy with at least one hand free and haven't found out that Playboy exists. Give it a break because it was the early 70s? No way. There had been sketch comedy going back at least ten years prior. The only way I could even forgive this film even being made is if it was at gunpoint. Retro? Hardly. Sketches about clowns subtly perverting children may be cutting edge in some circles (and it could actually have been funny) but it just comes off as really quite sad. What kept me going throughout the entire 75 minutes? Sheer belief that they may have saved a genuinely funny skit for the end. I gave the film a 1 because there was no lower score...and I can only recommend it to insomniacs or coma patients...or perhaps people suffering from lockjaw...their jaws would finally drop open in disbelief.

I liked this movie. When the guy who was in on a bank heist of $40 million in gold dies, his cell mate is used as "Bait" to lead them to the high-tech crazy killer partner (by having a monitoring device implanted in his jaw without his knowledge). It's an action, spy type film with enough comical scenes to keep it light. It reminded me of Enemy Of The State. Well acted and good enough plot.

I didn't know what to expect when I rented this widescreen DVD. I knew it had a cult following but I had also seen a lot of the director's later works which although delightfully gory were also pretty much incoherent. DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING actually had a linear storyline and a mystery that kept me guessing almost until the end. And after all was said and done, it was a genuinely unsettling and creepy experience. One major caveat: I would much rather have heard the original soundtrack and read English subtitles than the uneven dubbing found here.

Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism.

This movie is bad. Really bad. So bad it made me want to shoot myself in the forehead. I hated this movie. First off, the plot went absolutely nowhere and anything shocking about this movie was seen in the 30 second teaser trailer. Secondly, Anyone who saw the original in 1979 knows that it was a bad movie too and completely unworthy of a remake. By far the best part of the movie is the house it takes place in. Which is not saying much for the actual movie. There were parts in the movie when the music gets very suspenseful and you're positive someone is around the corner and it turns out to be the maid or the cat, but when someone actually is around the corner it is impossible to be even startled because you've been expecting it all movie. So save yourself the money, save yourself the time, save yourself the headache and just watch the trailer. There is absolutely no point in seeing this movie, not in the theater, not on DVD, not on TV, never.

Cameron Mitchell plays an actor who is dating a young actress who used to date the head of a movie studio (she's too young for both of them!). At a party, when he's lighting his cigarette, the studio boss throws a high alcohol content drink in his face, and he catches fire. In the hospital, his face is entirely bandaged and he still lights up a cigarette! He becomes the resident sculptor of the Movieland Wax Museum and Palace, where he also lights up cigarettes!<br /><br />Mitchell recovers, more or less, having really poorly done burn makeup on one side of his face that looks like gray spackle and tape, and an eyepatch. When Mitchell isn't smoking, he's killing people. Well, he only kills people sometimes, since he prefers to inject them with something that puts them in a sort of waxy coma. If he doesn't administer it regularly (and he never seems to remember), they start to move again a little, although they're in a sort of hypnotic zombie state. Not all his sculptures are people, though. He evidently does have talent as a sculptor.<br /><br />The ending, which seemed to have been struck from a much poorer print than the rest of the movie, is really absurd. They seemed not to know what to do, and went back to the title for an idea. Apart from the oddly grainy final shots, the rest of the movie is in fairly good shape, except for the audio in some scenes which sounds like it was run through a blown speaker. Definitely not one of the better wax museum movies.

It looked cool from the movie sleeve, but after five minutes we weren't sure if it was a homosexual documentary of west side story without any female interest. The film quality was poor, and there was hardly enough gang fighting action to sustain even the drunkest person's interest for long enough to watch the entire film. May god have mercy on the souls of both the actors and the filmmakers responsible for what I can only describe as my new one and only reason why I never will want to see (or trust) an Australian made film again. I have to write more so I will again say that the actors were so bad that I'm positive I could make a better movie with fifteen dollars and a box of Trojans. Please don't see this movie for your own sake.

I have to say, from the beginning, when i watched the Stargate movie movie i wasn't blown away or anything it was like an average sci fi movie, with a lot of POTENTIAL, though the movie wasn't as, erm, amazing as other sci fi movies such as Star wars or aliens, which if u are a sci fi fanatic u will admit one of those two titles are amazing, even though i'm not as hardcore sci fi fan as some people, i don't remember one line from either of those movies, i'm not a big fan of wearing star wars T shirts, in fact if you saw me i would look like an average person to you, ah getting slightly off the point here, well my point is that the that you don't have to be a hard core sci fi fan to like this great series, which unfortunately ended after 10 amazing seasons with no drop in its quality as it got nearer to its end, in 2006.<br /><br />though i didn't like the movie much i was quite looking forward to the first season in 1997, and let me tell you, the special effects were only one of the brilliant things about the series, the chemistry between the characters just blew me away the special affects, were as good if not better than most sci fi shows running today. I have to admit that I would never have gone into Sci fi if it wasn't for stargate, and my dad, who actually got me into sci fi when i was like 6, and i'm glad he did, other wise i wouldn't have seen the brilliant shows like SG1, which now in my opinion sets the benchmark for nearly all sci fi series and movies, basically if a new sci fi series isn't better or as good as SG1, its not worth watching. basically this is the best sci fi show to date, and if you don't watch this, then you have no idea what you are missing!

This is one of those feel good, Saturday afternoon movies. It's right up there with other retro flicks like Flight of the Navigator. Just a cute movie with some subtle comedy to lighten things up. And it's fun to see how 20 years has changed the stars like Kelly Preston and Lea Thompson. Not to mention Joquin Phoenix.<br /><br />I personally really like movies like this from time to time. Nothing too deep or too scary. Just a nice story line. And I would have never known Mr. Phoenix had I not recently read the credits. He was just a baby really when he made this movie.<br /><br />Kelly Preston was quite the young budding actress then too. She and Lea did a wonderful job in this movie. I agree it's not an Oscar caliber movie. But very much worth watching. Especially if you have kids in the , let's say, 8 to 11 year old range. Or ones that are interested in the space program.

I had a really hard time making it through this move. It was extermly slow and at times wondered when the plot of the movie would actually come to life.<br /><br />This movie seemed to flow to slow and I kept on wondering when it was going to end. I am normally a person who likes a good indie file every once in a while but this did not satisfy what I was looking for.<br /><br />It seemed they tried to make to much out of this movie. At one point it seemed to turn political which I am not a big fan of in movies. If you are looking for a slow moving movie with little to no plot then this is the right movie for you. As for me I felt I wasted 2 hours when I could of been doing something else.

Just finished this impressively nutty affair and whilst I can't say as it was as good as I had hyped it up to be in my mind it was still an effective and at time pretty nasty piece of brain warped and misogyny fuelled J-trash. Its story tells of a poor gal searching for her sister who winds up getting raped and drugged by Yakuza scumbags, and the helpful lady doctor who sets out to avenge her, doing so in bizarrely gruesome fashion after a similar bout of rape and drugging. Oh yeah and there's a bit of straightforward sex in there as well, sadly its all soft core, as per the Japanese disapproval of below the belt nudity, but pixelation is minimal, in fact only really noticeable in a hilarious blow-job scene. Although writer/director Kazuo "Gaira" Komizu fails in creating an especially compelling tale this is at least pretty scuzzy stuff, diving early on into the well of filth with a pretty unsettling rape (made worse by the fact that the gal looks kinda young, though I'm pretty sure she was of age). Also, for the most part this is pretty professional looking stuff, maybe not stylish but it has a certain flair and the content is handled reasonably well, with particular kudos for largely avoiding having to employ much pixellation. Things are mostly sex/rape based for about two thirds of the sharp runtime and its pretty watchable if you groove to such fare, it gets a bit numbing after a while but the ladies are easy on the eye and it is reasonably harsh at times. The music, from Yôichi Takahashi is occasionally effective, though hardly a key part of the show it does in a few spots complement the action neatly, at any rate enough for me to notice it. More important are the effects, by Nobuaki Koga, which pack an impressively splattery punch when they appear, helped out by the lunatic nature of the climactic shenanigans. Things even pull to a curiously affecting ending, sure it ain't a weepy or anything, but for a film so gutter level for most of its runtime it is relatively poignant. Altogether this is a pretty entertaining diversion for mean spirited trash fans, especially those with a taste for Japanese rapey adventures. I could really have done with a longer revenge section and more gore, also perhaps more of a point/brains, but hey, it kept me watching and it is pretty nicely stocked with memorably wtf moments. So if you dig this sort of degenerate junk, probably worth your while, just maybe don't expect the second coming.

An OK flick, set in Mexico, about a hit-man (Scott Glenn) who hitches a ride with struggling American writer and his Mexican girlfriend after a hit. He pays them to take him to the border – but things get out of hand.<br /><br />It starts well enough, but quickly struggles and dies.<br /><br />**SPOILER**<br /><br />The eventual relationship twist is badly set up and difficult to believe. An absence of passion, and essentially no reasoning behind her leaving one man for the other, made it ridiculous - and the ending was predictable and dull.<br /><br />**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Harvey Keitel is the US agent on the hit-man's trail, but he seems a little confused as to how boring and slow the script is...

THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is my second attempt at a Joseph Sarno production - and although I will say it is far more enjoyable than the painfully dull and unerotic Swedish WILDCATS, it is still a little slow and un-explicit for my taste.<br /><br />This one centers around a group of vampire girls who live in a castle, that want to resurrect their previously murdered "leader". In order to do so, the girls have to dance around naked and kiss each other and chant weird stuff - and of course drink some blood, too. When a doctor and her brother's car breaks down and they have to stop at the castle for lodging - they provide the ideal bloodbank for the horny vampires...but they may not be as helpless as they seem...<br /><br />THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING is a pretty good example of early 70's exploit sleaze. Lots of nudity - including some full-frontal, some sleazy undertones - including incest and of course, lesbo-bloodsucking...but these scenes are still pretty tame by today's standards. Some pretty hot women in this one, would have benefited from some more explicit sex, but I guess ya can't have it all. Also would have benefited from some heavier violence/gore, being that it IS a vampire film, but I think the purpose of THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING was more to showcase skin, not blood. Still a little slow - and the acting for the most part is absolutely wooden - but that's to be expected from something from this era and of this budget. Worth a look to exploit fans - others may find it a little too dull for their liking. 7/10