Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds

like 0

I had high expectations following "My Beautiful Laundrette", "Bend it like Beckham" and (less so) "East is East". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.<br /><br />Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a "those were the days" soundtrack, and lots of "issues" in an attempt to be worthy.<br /><br />I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.<br /><br />Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual "BBC comedy" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. "Bend it like Beckham" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.<br /><br />In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.<br /><br />

This movie gave me recurring nightmares, with Alan Rickman's voice representing an omnipotent, insidious, fascist ruler. The scariest movie I have ever seen - psychological terror more powerful than anything any "horror" movie has ever achieved. Alan Rickman's voice will always represent to me the power and terror of a totalitarian state, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. This movie describes to those who don't care the reality of a large part of current world governments. This film is disturbing, but in a way that everyone should watch it - it's a description of a reality that no one should ever have to experience, but so many do.

I saw this when it was in the theater, it started out so strong I mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent AT THE time. Now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations, and other related psychological factors. Now as I said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. It builds to an excellent climax then.... IT ends I mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it, besides being a very poetic description. In my experience, it was just not strong enough. My wife and I were well... how can I say this? We were upset, I mean we paid money, invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. "We both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. In fact my wife said it best, it did not end, IT JUST STOPPED!

I was watching this movie and getting increasingly bored with the silly plot that was going nowhere, when suddenly, the story takes a surreal turn for the worse and has an actor playing herself. Oh how I guffawed. Because it's sooooo funny, isn't it? We know Julia Roberts is playing the character of Tess, and here they are, in the film, cracking the joke that the character of Tess looks a bit like Julia Roberts. So Julia plays someone impersonating Julia. How well she does this, we'll never know, because 99.999% of the audience don't actually know Julia Roberts personally (and reading about her in Hello magazine doesn't count). <br /><br />And then Bruce Willis turns up! Apparently, he's Julia Roberts' best friend. Well, he is in the film... how would I know whether or not Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts even know each other? I'm not in the least bit interested in the personal lives of actors - I just pay my money and expect them to do the job they're paid to do. Anyway they start cracking jokes about the plot twist in the film where Willis (rather unconvincingly) plays a psychiatrist... the one with the little kid in it... you know the one? I don't, I've forgotten what it's called. Willis even drops in a comment about how well that film did at the box office - how modest of you Mr Willis!<br /><br />The problem is that, not only are these scenes pointless and horribly horribly self-indulgent, it also remind us, the viewers, that we're simply watching a bunch of actors strutting around and getting paid vast sums of money for very little effort. You see, when I see a movie, I want to suspend disbelief and forget that I'm watching actors - I want to believe in the story I'm watching. When you start pulling the scenery down, mid- movie, you simply ruin the illusion for me.<br /><br />You know that a TV series has jumped the shark when it starts introducing celebrities, playing themselves (stand up and be counted The Simpsons, Friends, etc.), but this is the first time I've seen a movie jump the shark. I usually stay away from movies like that (e.g. Scary Movie, The Naked Gun, etc.). The trouble is, I honestly never thought the Ocean's 11 films would go in this direction. What a shame.<br /><br />So with suspension of disbelief thrown out the window, and the plot now languishing in the movie then cracks the most wicked joke of all on the audience - the heist actually happened way back in the story, and the final 90 minutes or so of the film was pointless posturing. Yes, that's right: Steven Soderwhatsit and his actor friends all get up, point at us the audience and say, "Ha haaa... you've all been had... thanks for your money!". Then they give us the single fingered salute.<br /><br />Well, right back at you. I didn't actually pay to see this movie... I downloaded the DVD for nothing. How d'ya like them apples? Now THAT'S a plot twist.

this movie was a horrible excuse for...a movie. first of all, the casting could have been better; Katelyn the main character looked nothing like her TV mom. <br /><br />also, the plot was pathedic. it was extremely cliché and predictable. the ending was very disappointing and cheesy. (but thats all i'll say about that). <br /><br />the nail in the bag though, was a scene when Katelyn (jordan hinson) was supposed to be crying, but the girl couldn't cry on command! there were no tears streaming down her face, just a few unbelievable sobs. she is not a dynamic actress at all. she gave the same fake little laugh identical to that of hillary duff on lizzie Maguire (sp?). thats when the movie went from not-so-good, to just plain bad. it really looked like she was acting. <br /><br />in a nutshell: this movie was really bad! it was kind of a mix of every cliché kid movie from the 1990's that everyone's sick of--only worse!<br /><br />i give it an 'F', because it was just so darn hard to sit through (b/t/w, i was babysitting when i saw it). <br /><br />however, you may like it if your 9 or under. ;)

First, I did like this film. It was well acted by all.<br /><br />However, I don't understand comments I hear from people about a surprise ending. I knew nothing about this movie going in except a few "gotta-see" recommendations, but I knew where the plot was going in under ten minutes. (I won't mention what clued me in so as not to spoil a good film for others.) Still, despite it seeming obvious, I kept watching. It was nice to see how everything played out, filling in the details and the character motivations in later scenes.<br /><br />I don't hate it when I guess the ending early in a film. I only hate it when the road to resolution is lined with boring scenery.<br /><br />Will Smith's screen persona is just likable, even when he's playing such a troubled character. He's energetic and believable in everything that I've seen him do. Seven Pounds is another fine performance.<br /><br />Rosario Dawson is a solid performer, portraying a quirky, rather upbeat character despite a terminal heart condition. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and with Rosario, if you don't find her gorgeous, you should think about replacing your eyes.<br /><br />It was nice to see Woody Harrelson back on the screen. I haven't seen him much lately, but that could just be me. Woody didn't have a tremendous amount of screen time, but he sold his jolly, piano-playing, blind man character for all it was worth. Excellent.<br /><br />A cursory bit of research on the box jellyfish tells me that its venom is cardiotoxic, neurotoxic and dermatonecrotic. I would think this makes it a questionable choice for both pet and plot.<br /><br />Overall, I have to recommend this film not for the plotting, but for some very good performances, and for the fact that it tends to evoke some of the tragic emotions that we generally try to avoid.

An old man is riding his bike down a village road when a car comes out of nowhere, strikes him down dead, and keeps driving. The rest of the film is spent discovering who hit him, why he was hit, and what consequences this murder will have on the rest of the village. Separate Lies is a very British movie indeed. I'm not saying that hit-and-run car accidents are a particularly British phenomenon, but the way everyone reacts to this tragedy is very British. Tom Wilkinson plays James Manning, a hard-working, respectable citizen with a "stiff-upper-lip" attitude towards tragedy. His wife Anne (Emily Watson), who is twenty years younger than her husband, is more emotional, more impulsive, and more prone to drama.<br /><br />The man who really spices up life in this sleepy village is playboy millionaire William Bule, played by a deliciously devilish Rupert Everett (most American audiences will eternally remember him as Julia Roberts' gay friend who completely stole every scene in My Best Friend's Wedding). In Separate Lies, Everett is cruel, cold, and selfish, but he's an absolute blast on screen. No, it's not that exciting of a movie title (Separate Lies – how did they end up with that lame and forgettable title? Did they just not have a marketing team? Did they just now care about getting people to see this film?), but beyond the title is a heartbreaking drama about the power of forgiveness.

Van damme has done some great films over the years and this one hits a big ten in my books. From the setting of Mexico to the five star fight scenes, this movie was amazing. The film is all about border patrol officers protecting there territory which is the border of Mexico. Ex navy seals are smuggling drugs out of Mexico into the united states of America (USA), Van damme and Scott Atkins give stunning performances as the cop and the villain. Although this film wasn't as good as until death but it still gave the action,acting and the film a five star look. I always look forward to these b grade action films and they keep getting better. keep them coming van damme.<br /><br />Watch this film if you enjoyed films like - Until death, The hard corps and second in command.

This movie is very hilarious, and it has a great compilation of actors like William H. Macy which always have perform this kind of roles, maybe his most representative, Fargo; and George Clooney which is a very good actor showing his comedian work in brothers Cohen film "Oh brother, where art thou?" which results to be one of my favorite movies ever! But it's been hard to find "Welcome to Collinwood", here in Mexico. My city lacks of good places where to buy some good films. I tried to buy it at Blockbuster but they don't know it by the original name, so maybe it will be a little easier to find if I have the name they gave to it in Mexico, do someone knows it?, because I can't remember! Cheers. A.

The "Hunting Trilogy" of Rabbit Fire (1951), Rabbit Seasoning (1952), and Duck! Rabbit! Duck! (1953) should be considered the comedic high water mark of the Chuck Jones-Michael Maltese collaboration. While they are seldom mentioned in lists of the "greatest" or "most important" cartoons in the history of animation, they are certainly THE FUNNIEST cartoons I've ever seen. Michael Maltese never got the credit that directors like Jones, Freleng or Avery got, but it's his dialogue and situations that make Warner Bros. cartoons, and these three in particular, some of the FUNNIEST ever made.

Being a huge horror movie fan, one of the most difficult things to be considering the lack of abundance of good movies in the genre, and having seen hundreds of them in my lifetime, I have to say that Dracula 3000 is by far the most uninspired, lame and poorly done piece of trash I have had the misfortune to see. STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE! It's so bad it's not even laughable. The special effects (did I say "special"?) were probably achieved spending a couple of grand, the acting is terrible and the script should have ended up in the trash bin after the first read by the studio that decided to take on this miserable project. The whole movie was literally filmed in a warehouse. Also, for you guys out there who like nudity in your movies, don't be fooled by the R rating. If you're thinking you get a chance to see Erika Eleniak even half-naked, you're wrong. She is fully clothed throughout the entire movie. And the cover art is completely misleading! There is no scene in any part of the movie that even marginally resembles the awesome cover art they put on the box to draw unsuspecting horror fans.<br /><br />Too bad the rating is only 1 to 10. I would give this movie a -10. Be warned. Don't waste your money or your time on this one.

1/10 and that's only because I don't go lower with my ratings.<br /><br />skip this "movie" and wait for the last movie of the "Trilogy", don't buy or rent it. trust me you won't be missing a thing. the Architect brings no new info: _(spoiler)_ there have been more NEO's before him, he's like nr.6 or something. you could already figure something like that out from the first movie: Agent Smith telling us the first Matrix created didn't work because it was too perfect. Trinity died and Neo's "love" brought her back, where have I seen this before ? Oh right in the first movie the roles where reversed ! same as the action-scenes nothing new just with more opponents. the Action-scene (the 20+ ships) in the BIG battle which we didn't see (maybe in Revolutions ?), betrayed by someone (hmmmm, maybe the guy holding the knife who wanted to stab Neo?!) who pushed the EGM-button to soon.<br /><br />all in all a shameless ploy to make money (especially off the guys who went to see it more then once), which evidently worked like a charm.

Back in 1994 the Power Rangers had become a huge franchise and t.v. executives at the USA Network were hoping to get in on the action and came up with the Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills, in which the evil Emporer Gorganus, who looks like he's wearing a home made Darth Vader costume, and his talking bird, that looks like a rubber dog chew toy, come to earth to invade it using giant monsters that look like rejects from a 1970's Godzilla film. Fortunately Nimbar an alien that looks like a giant piece of clear jello recruits four teenagers to defend the earth, Nimbar gives them each a tattoo of a different star constellation that allows them to transform into buffed up superheros who look like dancers from an eighties tech no music video, they could also combined into a giant knight. Forty episodes were made. The USA Network clearly did not have the money to try to adapt a show from Japan like Power Rangers did, and made up this show on their own using the budget of a 1950's scifi film. The fights scenes are generic, the special effects are poor, and some of the sets look like they could fall down. The actors pretty much realized how ridiculous the show was and pretty much ham it up and overact. I can only imagine their shock when the show was cancel led.

This movie just might make you cooooo. The film was WELL worth the dark trip to town. Betty (Renee Zellweger)is the lone "acceptable" soap groupie out there. Her character is SO charming and SO convincing that you find yourself in forgiveness over her being such a goof. I might even allow myself to get lost in Bettys' adorable fantasy, if it weren't for the fact that Dr. Ravell's real name is George... And speak of the devil; "looker" Greg Kinnear fills his role VERY well. While Charlie (Morgan Freeman) makes you wish for his wish to come true, Wesley (Chris Rock) makes you want to tie him to a chair. And Rosa(Tia Texada)takes you back to those luminous grade-school friendships. The sheriff encourages you to feed him donuts and loose his name. The remainder of the cast fits well. Never one to do the same movie twice, Nurse Betty is the exception. One of these long, cold, needing to smile about something winter days.

Ahem.. I think I'll be the only one who's saying this but yes, I was a lil bored during the film. Not to say that this is a bad movie, in fact it's a very good attempt at portraying the innermost emotions - dilemma, sorrow, love.., esp it's the director's debut (read from somewhere, is it true?). I felt that something's not quite right, maybe it's just me, I'm not drawn to the characters enough to immerse me in their world. This is a simple story, about ordinary people, ordinary lives. Through simple and short dialogs, the director tries to relate a simple guy's life, and how copes with the news of his illness by laughing it away every time. Oh ya his laughter was kinda cute at first but gradually it gets to me, such a deep hearty roar for a gentle man! I must say, I didn't feel the impact that most readers felt, in fact I was more drawn to the trivial scenarios like spitting of watermelon seeds with his sis that clearly shows that they're comfortable with each other, the granny who came back for another shot - this is kinda melancholic, the thoughtful gesture of writing down the procedures for his dad - hmm but this is predictable.. Don't misunderstood that I'm an action-lover, independent films are my cup of tea! Perhaps I just have a really high expectation after watching many deep films that have stronger imagery. Some Asian films worth the watch: <br /><br />Tony Takitani (depicts loneliness) Wayward Cloud (only 1 dialog) My Sassy Girl (I like it!) 4.30 (loneliness as well) 15 (gangsters lives in local setting) Before sunrise and Before sunset (I just have to mention these even though they are not Asian films. Fans will understand!)

OK, a film about a film that takes a crack at Video movie making could be entertaining. Could be, should be, funny, edgy, even controversial, or at least interesting, and yet... This film is the bizzaro negative version of that. Hamlin was entertaining as a 'B' Film producer. Shatner played crazy yet likable, and had all the best lines. The rest of the characters were boring, predictable, boring, underdeveloped, boring and boring. The production value was lame. You'll actually see the boom come down in one scene. The sound was awful in some of the scenes. Hey I'm a big fan of Shatner's and of Hamlin now, but their talents are wasted here. At least the story had a clichéd ending.

I concur with everyone above who said anything that will convince you to not waste even a briefest of moments watching this amazingly amateurish movie. Very poor acting, offhand production values, utterly pedestrian direction, and a script so inept and inane it should never have been written, let alone produced. Even Hollywood "professionals" apparently go to work just for a paycheck, although no one should have been paid for this bad work. Careers should instead have ENDED over this inconsequential drivel.<br /><br />OTH, there is something fascinating about watching something so jaw-droppingly bad. And Chad Lowe is terrifically and consistently bad.

(Synopsis) Graduating high school senior Bartleby "B" Gaines (Justin Long) finds himself without a college to attend. He has been able to talk and con his way out of every problem he encounters, but he hasn't been able to charm his way pass the college admissions board of eight colleges. His mom and dad are very disappointed that Bartleby hasn't been accepted into college. His parents think that if Bartleby doesn't go to college, he will have no future. Several of Bartleby's friends are in the same situation of being rejected by all the colleges they applied to. To satisfy their parents, Bartleby comes up with an idea to start his own college with an internet site. They convert an abandoned psychiatric facility into the South Harmon Institute of Technology. They will be the only students. However, the web site states that we accept anyone. On the first day of school, they unexpectedly have a large number of accepted students that were also rejected by all colleges. With a million dollars in tuition money, Bartleby must make his fake college into a functioning one. He hires Uncle Ben (Lewis Black) as the College Dean. The fun begins when they design their own curriculum, make their own rules, and party all night.<br /><br />(My Comment) The premise of starting a college without a teaching staff is a little off the wall. Since it was a fake college, Bartleby really didn't need a staff. The movie reminded me of the classic movie "Animal House", the college setting, the fraternity, lots of gags, and pretty young women. These new college freshmen had a different notion of what the college experience was all about. The movie not only has lots of humor, it also has a good message for life. People should reach for their dream and create a passion for what they want to do in life and not settle for what other people want them to do. The ending was a little unrealistic, but it is only a movie. The movie was made for the young crowd to have a little fun. (Universal Pictures, Run time 1:32, Rated PG-13) (7/10)

I've become a big fan of the Carpenters, and I didn't really enjoy this movie.<br /><br />I feel it focused far too much on her anorexia and didn't let her true personality shine through. I wasn't overly fond of Cynthia Gibb's portrayal; especially knowing she decided Karen's anorexia was suicide, which it clearly wasn't. Although her family was not big on hugs and kisses, I thought the movie portrayed Agnes (their mother) as being terrible.<br /><br />I did find a few scenes to be harrowing in a way, such as where she sees herself in a mirror that seems to distort her and make her look heavier; I thought the metaphor (so-to-speak) there was rather effective. When the family is playing pool and discussing her divorce and she breaks down and Richard is shocked when he comforts her and feels her frail body was pretty moving (which is probably the wrong word) as well.<br /><br />Overall, I feel they needed to bring out her more bubbly, quirky side--her genuine personality. Even as the focus of the film, there really wasn't a point that caused one to understand what would lead her to anorexia (though of course no one can really know), and almost made it seem baseless. The film was more poor-singer-with-anorexia than Karen Carpenter's story, in my opinion.<br /><br />I would assume that they changed her husband's name/profession and all because they couldn't get his permission to actually include him (there were some bad terms there), but that whole aspect was inaccurate with the changes. On this note, I can't recall the movie bringing out her longing for a family and kids, which greatly prevailed in her life and explains her whirlwind romance and quick marriage to her husband.<br /><br />On the whole, it ends up as a low-budget made-for-TV movie that just isn't very high quality and can be disappointing if you're a hardcore fan who is hoping to see beyond Karen's disease. I feel that such a legend deserves/deserved a better film as a tribute to an amazing person and an awesome voice.

The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them!

My ex wife and I saw and were intrigued by the trailer for this film. We waited for it to come out but when it did it didn't stay in theaters very long. Several years later I bought it on VHS and I am transferring it to DVD so I can preserve it.<br /><br />I found it to be very moving. It is about real events in a real country. BURMA got such a bad reputation for the political oppression it created that they changed their name.<br /><br />I find women with little make-up on to be very sexy. Patricia Arquette is in this movie. Frances McDormand and Spalding Gray are in it only briefly.<br /><br />After coming home to find her young son and husband brutally murdered Laura (Arquette) is afraid of blood. A bad trait for a doctor. Her sister (McDormand) talks her into going on a vacation to Burma. While there she witnesses a peaceful demonstration and has her passport stolen. In a bold (or stupid) move she asks a tourist guide to show her something off the tourist track. Her guide is injured by soldiers and she spends the rest of the movie trying to get him and herself to safety.<br /><br />Every time I watch this it reminds me that we in the United States forget that to a peasant living under military rule, SOCIALISM, where at least eating is virtually guaranteed, looks pretty darn good.

I love Jamie Foxx.<br /><br />And I enjoy 99% of all movies I see.<br /><br />And I walked out of this one.<br /><br />Now, I admit, it may have had something to do with the two middle-aged white women in the back of theatre who laughed at every little thing ("Oh no, Jamie's knocking on a door! HEE HEE HEE!"), but... this was just so incredibly annoying. There could be no sustained camera shot, and no camera shot from a conventional angle... everything had to be in-your-face, loud, and annoying.<br /><br />The bad guy tried to be smooth and Malkovich-like, but at this point, it's just old and tired. He brought nothing new or interesting. From all the characters, too many lines you saw coming, too many you've heard before, and too many "tough guy" lines... and I don't mind that sort of thing, really, as long as there's a bit of originality to it. In fact, pretty much the entire supporting cast just sucked.<br /><br />I love Jamie Foxx, and I think he's really funny, and I thought he was funny in this movie... but not nearly funny enough for me to endure everything else. <br /><br />This movie needed less shoot-em-up, less annoying camera shots, more emotion, more feeling, and more Jamie Foxx. I gave it a 2.

Have to be honest and say that I haven't seen many independent films, but I thought this one was very well done. The direction and cinematography were engaging without becoming a distraction. The angles, settings, and lighting used successfully created the nightmarish world in which the main character was trapped. Many haunting and memorable images from the film stick in your mind long after it's over (always a sign of a good director).

*The whereabouts of Al Capone<br /><br />*Who shot JFK?<br /><br />*Cynthia Gibb lands the part of "Gypsy" in the TV remake<br /><br />These are some of the great unsolved mysteries of the 20th century. How else can I say it, except, I thought she was unredeemingly awful. Mannequin mannerisms, poor reactionary acting (ie: that blank, stoic stare while he co-star in the scene speaks)and a singing voice that most voice coaches would rate "mediocre". But she is stunningly gorgeous and after all, wasn't that what the Gypsy character is all about? Cashing in on her looks cuz' she didn't cut the mustard in the talent department?<br /><br />As for the rest... Bette is fantastic. Whether or not she's playing herself or playing Mama Rose, it works either way, and I for one thought Rosalind Russell was as exciting as drywall in the original. Peter Riegart as "Herbie" is the perfect understated foil to Bette's over-the-top Mama, and he's the medium-temperature porridge between Midler's hot dish and Gibb's stone cold mush. Riegart is juuuust right.<br /><br />One final holler to the man responsible for decades to come of Cher jokes: Bob Mackie. Drag queens would kill for the glitz and glamour on display here. Everything's coming up sequins and bugle beads!<br /><br />

I like Fulci films, i really do and not in some boring ironic way either but i recognise that they appear hopelessly inept and garbled to lots of people.<br /><br />Conquest is where Fulci tries his hand at the epic fantasy genre and doesn't really succeed. Structurally, it's like most Fulci films you've seen. Some stuff happens, some more stuff happens and occasionally one scene might be tangentially related to another. Really it's like Conan with no sets, no script, no real actors (yes, Arnold Scharzenfartz is hardly an actor either), no budget, stupid looking dog soldiers and a bunch of gore.<br /><br />This one was a hard one to get through and i could've lived without the inch of vaseline smeared on the camera to give it that Hair Metal music video look.

'Blue Desert' may have had the potential to be even a half-way plausible and more enjoyable thriller had the main character, Lisa Roberts (Courtney Cox) not been so stupid. When she is the victim of another attack on the streets of New York, comic book artist Roberts moves to a small town out West. In her first days there, she meets the suspiciously crazy Randall Atkins (Craig Sheffer, playing this part well) who will eventually not leave her side. Fearing for her safety after having been in the situation already twice before, she strikes up a friendship and relationship with the suspiciously amicable town cop, Steve Smith (D.B. Sweeny, who's character does not seem convincing enough, leaving disbelief among viewers who should otherwise be convinced of the red herrings thrown by the writers). Smith needs Roberts cooperation because, as he tells her, Atkins is an ex-con and guilty of sexual assault. But, the cops have lacked the evidence to put him away before.<br /><br />The movie had enough ploys to at least make an interesting movie because soon enough, there is such confusion as to whom Roberts should trust. However, much of the intended suspense appears too forced because Roberts character never seems to react to simple things as we think any reasonable person might. And her delayed responses allow much of that suspense to occur to easily and unconvincingly, particularly in the finale. Perhaps Sweeny was the wrong choice for this role; too baby faced in ways that kind of recall Kevin Anderson's persona evident in his character in 'Sleeping With the Enemy.' Or, if Lisa Roberts was written as a stronger character, this might suffice as well. In the meantime, the film is not all that great, even as a low-budget B-thriller.

The Stepford Children is the second best Stepford movie in the Stepford series.I saw the original The Stepford Wives in the theater when it came out in 1975.I was absolutely blown away,it was terrific.I have seen all of the Stepford movies, and I like all of them.I think that The Stepford Children is such a campy and fun movie.I just watched it again recently on tape, and I enjoyed it immensely.The cast in this movie was real good to watch. Barbara Eden did a bang up job as usual.Every role that she has ever played has been very good.Barbara Eden is very good at playing roles where she is a kind and nurturing type of person.Don Murray as the husband and father was just perfect in this movie.He was particularly effective at being the irritated father to his two teenage children.I made sure that I have all of the Stepford movie on tape to enjoy.If you get a chance to see this movie you should.

Given the budget and the inexperience of everyone involved, Livin' tha Life could have been worse. Jamal wants to be Chris Tucker (whom I've always found very annoying), as a previous commentator has noted, but Peanut (Edward D. Smith), while some of his (over)reactions go on way too long (a director's problem), has some comparatively subtle and funny moments, such as when he is trying to instruct Jamal on the proper method of smoking a joint with a buddy. Throughout, he is usually more poised and self-possessed than Jamal, which could have been the germ of a nice exploration of the contrasts in the relationship but wasn't developed very far.<br /><br />But the inexperience of the writer/director/cinematographer/etc. is no excuse for his inattention. Has he ever seen a movie? Faces are important! Has he ever heard of a closeup? Even Ed Wood could do a closeup. I don't think it's much of a budget issue. I could only give a general description of what any of the actors look like, and not just because of no closeups, but the lighting ...! Lights for outdoor shooting may cost too much, but you can make a reflector with pieces of paper! That would have required moving the camera closer to keep the reflector out of the shot, helping to solve the closeup problem at the same time. If that's too technical you can turn the actors around so they are not in shadow, or you can expose for the shadows, and if it hadn't been shot in L.A. I'd say take advantage of cloudy days. It goes without saying that the movies this one steals from are all, with the possible exception of Weekend at Bernie's, better than this one, but Livin' tha Life would have left a much better impression if it hadn't made the viewer squint all the way through just to catch a glimpse of whatever the human element might have been.<br /><br />P.S. The scene in the barbershop is just stupid.

Asmali Konak has arguably become one of the best TV series to come out of Turkey. With its unique cinematography and visual approach to filming, the series has gained a wide following base with rating records continuously broken. Personally I do not agree with singers becoming actors (hence, Ozcan Deniz - the lead actor) but I guess the figures speak for themselves.<br /><br />In relation to the movie, it was disgusting to see how much someone can destroy such a plotline. Years in the making, this movie was able to oversee every descent story that existed within the series. Not only that, the cultural mistakes were unacceptable, with an idiotic scene involving the family members dancing (Greek style) and breaking plates, which does not exists anywhere within the Turkish culture.<br /><br />Some argue the movie should be taken as a stand alone movie not as a continuation of the TV series but this theory has one major fall, the way the movie was marketed was that it will be picking up where the series left off and will conclude the series once and for all. So with that note in mind, me and everyone I know, would have asked for a refund and accepted to stand outside the theatre to warn other victims.

This is basically just a dumb chase story, nearly identical to zillions of other chase stories in terms of acting, suspense, plot, dialogue, characterization (or lack thereof), and pacing.<br /><br />The one area in which 'The Net' diverges from traditional chase movies is in its subject material: Computers. Unfortunately, the scriptwriters clearly didn't understand the differences between a pocket calculator and a Cray!<br /><br />Computer-newbies shouldn't watch this movie, because it will make them paranoid about computers. No matter what Hollywood tries to tell us, it's just not that easy to erase someone's identity by hacking. There's still too much paper documentation in the world, and there was even more of it in 1995.<br /><br />Computer-pros shouldn't watch this movie, either. I mean, a magical virus that can melt your entire PC when you press "Escape"? Please. And the whole virus, including the cool multimedia effects of your screen dissolving (what's THAT all about?) can fit on a single 1.44mb diskette? Yeah ... whatever.

My daughter already wrote a review of this movie in my sign in...but I want to add a few words. <br /><br />‘National Velvet' was one of my two favorite movies as a child. (The other being 'The Wizard of Oz‘.) The cinematography, the acting, the script, and the music all came together is such a wonderful little heart felt drama that it can still bring tears to my jaded eyes. Based on a book by Enid Bagnold, the script followed the book quite well. The characters are so thoughtfully created. It's easy to become emotionally involved with the entire family and the quaint little Irish village in which they live. The premise...complete outsider believes in her horse and herself enough to chance a try at the greatest horse race in the world...is awe inspiring to any young person, especially a young girl in the 40's...a time when girls were sometimes ignored as humans beings let alone athletes. You would have to be terribly hard-boiled not to appreciate it's merit. <br /><br />But the perspective I cherished most about this movie is the unabridged innocence in it's moral message.. It's almost magical how 'mom and apple pie' the movies were back then. I was really taken aback by the IMDB reviewer who asked...'Was the world ever really this trusting?' and then proceeded to chastize the director for his complacency regarding ‘unchaperoned' overnight travel involving the two main characters. My answer to his question is an unequivocal YES!!!! The movie going world was that trusting in the 40's.<br /><br />My grandparents remember taking my mother to this movie when it was released. Then my mother took me to see it when I was young, and my daughter was lucky enough to be born at a time when she could watch it repeatedly on video tape. Now we have it on DVD. It's been a family favorite for generations, albeit generations of horse lovers. It was never about sex...it's about coming of age! It's about believing in yourself and working hard to reach your goals. Also, so old fashioned it wasn't even about the prize money! It's about the girl child who understood her horse had what it took to ‘be the best'. And yes, the director was indeed concerned with Elizabeth Taylor's lack of physical development because the book made a big deal about Velvet Brown (Liz Taylor's character) having to cut her hair and bind her chest so that she could pass as a male jockey when she went to the Grand National Steeplechase. This was a guys only sport back then...I think there have only been 12 women ever to compete in this race. It's almost insulting that anyone would bother to think the Lolita thing about this particular movie...besides, anyone having had anything at all to do with an adolescent girl and her horse would know that the only thing they ever think about with stars in their eyes have four hooves and a tail.<br /><br />And now for a great bit of trivia...the stunt riding was performed by the now famous ‘Horse Whisperer', Monty Roberts. I believe he is given mentioned for his riding in the movie credits.<br /><br />I give this movie a 10 out of 10! I never get tired of watching it again.

It was so disjointed - it seemed to jump from place to place - and the "thief" was obvious. It was a poor man's (not to mention high school) "Less than Zero". I would pass on this movie as it has very little to add. So many issues are left unresolved, and that's okay - but the fact that it jumps around to the point where you wonder what's exactly going on is terrible. The voice-over is needed because the movie doesn't work on its own. Avoid this movie, and watch something else about rich teen angst. I'm sure there are plenty of others to watch. Don't waste your time on this.

Julie (Meg Tilly) is a "goody two shoes" type high school girl who, determined to prove something to herself, allows herself to be subjected to the rituals of "The Sisters", a small-scale clique presided over by snooty, homecoming queen type Carol (Robin Evans). The Sisters propose that for Julie's final test she will spend the night in a mausoleum, preparing to drive Julie up the wall, but not knowing that recently deceased, ill-intentioned psychic Raymar is interred there and has plans to cause havoc from beyond the grave.<br /><br />While this debut picture for Tom McLoughlin ("Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives" and "Sometimes They Come Back") is limited by its obviously low budget, it's what McLoughlin and his crew are able to do with it that counts. It's genuinely creepy, unsettling fare; it might have very well scared the stuffing out of me if I were under 10 years of age, and even at my current age, it still got to me to a degree.<br /><br />Some of the effects look cheesy, but the decent looking corpses and gore are created by Tom Burman, an experienced makeup effects artist, who, while tending to be overshadowed by more famous names like Winston, Baker, and Bottin, has a good resume with other films like "Cat People" (1982) and "The Beast Within" to his credit.<br /><br />What I liked most about it was a real sense of foreboding and atmosphere, an aspect missing from some of the current trendy horror movies being shown in our multiplexes.<br /><br />Tilly is cute and appealing in her role, having recently completed her debut film work in "Tex" before joining this production. "One Dark Night" was completed some time before its release to theaters in 1983, where it actually did decent business during its first few weeks. The other actors do what they have to do well enough; familiar faces in the supporting cast include the equally appealing veteran singer / actress / voice-over artist Elizabeth (a.k.a. E.G.) Daily, Kevin Peter Hall, for once *not* playing some sort of creature character, but who unfortunately ends up with very little screen time, and none other than Adam "Batman" West. The director's wife Nancy, who would play Lizbeth in "Jason Lives", appears here as the spacey girl in front of the arcade.<br /><br />It's decent B-level horror entertainment, maybe too cheap for its ambitions, and maybe not that slick (hey, McLoughlin *was* just starting out), but definitely good for some chills.<br /><br />7/10

There are so many episodes that make me howl over the stories<br /><br />that I wish I could pick the best ones , Rocko and Bill make for a strange pair that are beyond help but manage to play the victim and BS their way out of hard time just to drag Dan into their life of crime .<br /><br />Canadians will notice the odd joke for Toronto or the Federal Government, and because the CBC axed a really good show by the Frantics that Dan was part of , the show takes shots at them and in the episode "Dan's Umbrella" the CBC is raked across the coals .<br /><br />When Dan says that the CBC would never waste taxpayers money on useless venture , Rocko enters the room and gives Dan back his Tape of Friday-Night with Ralph Benmurgue , this show was a flop and most people wouldn't get the joke unless they knew the CBC's history for making shows people don't watch or axing good shows that they do watch.

Hey now, I have never laid eyes on a Manga comic, but apparently this movie is based on one. Ah well, such is life. Anyway, this is a pretty bizarre, to say the least, movie, as things literally spiral out of control in a small Japanese town. People are becoming obsessed with the uzumaki (spiral) and this young girl watches her friend's father videotape a snail, and later in the movie, people start becoming snails? It also seems this boy's dad becomes so obsessed he somehow commits suicide in a household appliance. There is some bizarre humor here that might be at home in a Tim Burton movie, but there is some nastiness & gore like only the Japanese can do with justice. As with a lot of Japanese films though, the ending is the ending, and did anything get resolved? Well, not to my mind, it didn't. There are some hints as to why this is all happening but they aren't explored and there's a lot left to either the imagination or else it wasn't deemed important. Still though, there are lots of things for the eye to feast on and if you aren't obsessed with everything making perfect sense, this is well worth seeing, because it's just so original and bizarre. My favorite was the father with the spinning eyeballs, personally. 8 out of 10 stars.

I won't spoil it for you. Although you probably could care less if it was spoiled (you'll know what I mean after you watch it) Poor story. B-rated movie quality. Typical horror -stupid situations- rare timing. I should of known, when they try to push a lot of hype in their advertising or even add "quotes". Just tells me that the movie bombed big time. And they are trying to pull in everyone just so they can break even with to cost of making this bomb. I wish I could take back the time I spent watching this. I was stupid and thought that there just had to be something great around the corner. But I kept getting let down. I don't usually waste my time adding comments to any movie. In fact, this is my second post. I just felt maybe I could spare a few of you from wasting money on something that had a bunch of hype on it.

I don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.<br /><br />Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family.

it doesn't matter whether drew or leelee are total babes, but there are a lot of girls who are so pretty and hot but they appear to be so nerdy. This movie is not oscar type of movie but it has at least a good point of view of what life is like for young people or for "real" people. It made us laugh and learn to accept others for who they really are. this movie represents the real world and that what really matters.

This movie has the most beautiful opening sequence ever made. I've seen this movie for the first time a week ago, since then every day I see the opening and every time I feel as thrilled as I felt the first time I heard David Niven uttering the immortal words from Sir Walter Raleigh's The Pilgrimage:<br /><br />Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage (…)<br /><br />Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.<br /><br />I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes… do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.<br /><br />Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.<br /><br />I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.<br /><br />I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.<br /><br />The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.<br /><br />I found the film to be delightful!

I noticed this movie was getting trashed well before it hit the theaters and I too didn't have high hopes for it. I figured it was another "You Got Served" type of movie with some nice dance moves and horrid acting. I was at the theater and deciding between this and Meet the Spartans and picked this. To my surprise the acting wasn't bad at all and the movie was actually pretty good. The fact that it has a lower rating than You Got Served is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of listening to the garbage posted on here I recommend going to see a matinée showing of this movie so you don't spend too much. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with how wrong everyone has been about it. When it comes to dance movies this is certainly one of the better ones with far superior acting than many of the other ones. Go see the movie and judge for yourself. Hopefully the rating will rise after it comes out on DVD and more people check the movie out instead of judging it based on comments before the movie released.<br /><br />edit The movie is now moving closer to its correct rating. Over 1000 people have given it a rating of 9, a bit too high but at least it is helping to offset the ridiculous votes of 1.

Okay the promos promised a comedy and people(few) went to watch it Being the first release of 2006 is not a bad thing, or for that matter of any year, because the first and last films mostly flop except GHAJINI and some more<br /><br />Okay coming to JAWANI DIWANI<br /><br />Review in short The film is about Emraan Hashmi doing his usual stuff sadly it's annoying this time after repetitions It has an irritating Hrishita Bhatt and a flop Celina Jaitley<br /><br />Cringeworthy dialogues, comedy scenes and badly handled drama and lots of loopholes<br /><br />Direction is bad Emraan Hashmi is annoying here, luckily now he is coming of age But post FOOTPATH and MURDER and some decent work in some more films the actor in him took a backseat and directors focused on his kisses and womaniser image which sadly lost it's touch after repetitions Hrishita and Celina are bad Mahesh is horrible

Beyond Rangoon is one of the most emotional and intense films ever made. Superbly directed by John Boorman, and intensly acted by Patricia Arquette, this film can easily be called one of the best films of the 90's. The story and vivid characters just grab the audience from the very opening, and never lets go. After seeing the film, the viewer will never be able to forget "Beyond Rangoon". The film made little money at the box office, and is little known, but should be high profile. Watching it, you can tell that it was meant to be seen by a large audience. It is a very important and moving film, and should be seen by everyone.<br /><br />

Much said without words.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie. It was made in color-not color as in today's films, but a special mono-color use (with shadings) that portrayed meaning, mood, sense and time. It should be seen in color, as it becomes an entirely different film. The story, by Nobel prize-winner Selma Lagerlöf, is effectively presented. One never has a clear sense of real, memory or phantom. Changes going on in Swedish society at the time are subtly layered. Most highly recommend. Try to rent it or find it on-line. I saw it in a Swedish film class and I want to add it to my film library.

Eisenstein created the Russian Montage Theory, and this film is his finest example. It took years before someone could utilize his ideas and make them work (The Limey, 1999). Nonetheless, the baby carriage scene really demonstrates the discombobulated nature of RMT. Granted, like most movies, it gets long in some parts, the beauty of the film is amazing. One of the best silent films I have ever seen.

Not the best plot in the world, but the comedy in this movie rules. Kelsey Grammar is wonderful in this movie. Another funny guy is Rob Schneider who will make you crack up with his segments with Ken Hudson Campbell who plays Buckman. Lauren Holly plays probably the more serious character in the cast as Lt. Lake. Bruce Dern is a great actor in this movie, playing probably the most serious character in the movie. The actor i liked the most was Toby Huss as Nitro, all the electric shots his character takes in the movie is hilarious.<br /><br />Plot is a little uneven, about Lt. Commander Tom Dodge, who for years has wanted to Command his own sub. When he finally gets the chance, instead of a brand new sub, he gets a rusty WWII Diesel Sub, the Stingray. His crew isn't any better, misfits of the U.S. Navy. He is then put in a series of War Games, that shows how an old Diesel Engine can handle itself against the current Nuclear Navy. Things still don't get any better when he finds out his dive officer is actually a female officer, to see how Women do on actual Subs. To get the commander position he wants, he has to win the War Games, and blow up a Dummy Ship.<br /><br />The movie fairs quite well, in fact i laughed non-stop when i saw this movie in theaters. I loved when they were in silence and Buckman farts, and everyones reaction to the smell is hilarious.<br /><br />Overall, 9 out of 10, this movie is just plain fun to watch, it nice to have a movie like this, i hate movies that try to be 100% serious.

It is a Frank Zappa axiom that "music journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." If you ever needed proof that musicians can't talk, this is the film for you. Repeated attempts at profundity stumble over themselves to end up in monosyllabic comments delivered in awestruck voices: "Wow." (Thank you, Idris Muhammed.) This film is pretentious but, while much of the pontificating from Youssou N'Dour and his gang of merry men (and one token woman) grates, the music saves the day.<br /><br />The main idea behind the film (what I take to be the main idea, dredged out of the inarticulate commentary) is interesting. To gather a group of musicians from America and Europe and take them on a journey through the different styles of music that grew up in and out of slavery, back to their roots in the music of West Africa, and a concert in the old slave fort of Gorée off the coast of Senegal. We are treated to gospel, blues, jazz and variations of these, including some fantastic drumming both in New Orleans and Senegal. There's also a good deal of N'Dour's own compositions.<br /><br />Sadly, that's another weakness. It's never entirely clear what N'Dour himself wants to achieve. To some degree, the film appears to be an exercise in self-promotion on N'Dour's part. He wants to play his own music, jazzed up to some degree and performed in the company of a bunch of musicians he admires. He's clearly a little embarrassed by this and early in the film obtains the blessings of the Curator of the Gorée museum.<br /><br />The clash between the different agendas shows through in several other places. For example, somebody obviously felt that it was not possible to tell the story of black music without involving a gospel choir, but N'Dour and most of his mates are Moslems (a point made repeatedly throughout the film). The whole early sequence involving the black Christians is uncomfortable and then they disappear from the story until the close harmony group (the only black Christians who can hold a tone?) turn up in Dakar at the end of the film. (To be fair, they turn up triumphantly and perform the best piece in the film.) If the story of black music needs to nod in the direction of gospel, why not also in the direction of Latin America? Where are the black musical influences from the Caribbean and Brazil? Samba? Reggae? Then there's Europe. Here the black diaspora doesn't seem to have produced any musicians of calibre, since N'Dour chooses to draft in Austrian guitarist and a trumpet player from Luxemburg. Are they in the team just because N'Dour has played with him before? What I personally found most irritating, though, was the long sequence which tried to recreate a kind of 60s beatnik/black power/Nation of Islam cultural happening in the New York home of Amir Baraka (a.k.a. Leroi Jones). Hearing people talk about the importance of "knowing your history", and then in the next breath perpetuating ignorance. Why do so many African-Americans believe that taking an Arabic name is an assertion of their African roots? And why do they think Arabic Islam is so much more admirable than European Christianity? Who do they think established the trade in African slaves in the first place? The film doesn't have much to say about the situation in West Africa today beyond the platitude that "present conditions" are a consequence of all the brightest and best having been shipped away for 300 years. The Senegalese appear to be a poor but happy, musical gifted folk, friendly and welcoming, respectful of their elders (and not above fleecing the visiting Americans in the fish market). Is this ethnic stereotyping or just my imagination? There is no comment on the armed guard that N'Dour and the camera crew seem to need in the opening sequence as they walk through the streets of Dakar.<br /><br />There is also a strong implication in the film that the slaves who were taken from Dakar came from Dakar. The similarity between the folk drumming style of New Orleans and the folk drumming style of Senegal is cited in evidence. The last thing the slaves heard before they were shipped away was the drumming of their homeland, bidding them farewell. Except, of course, that by and large, the slaves shipped from Dakar did not come from Dakar. They were captured or traded from the interior by the coastal Senegalese and sold to merchants of whichever European power currently held the Gorée slave fort. The people of Dakar are not the descendents of Africans who escaped the slave trade, they are just as likely – more likely – to be descendents of the people who sold their black brethren into slavery and exile.<br /><br />The two agenda's clash again in the final part of the film. There are two separate endings. On the one hand, the concert which N'Dour and Co have been rehearsing and preparing along the way and which they deliver in the courtyard of the Gorée slave fort. The other end comes when the Harmony Harmoneers sing the spiritual "Return to Glory", in the seaward doorway of the slave fort. This is deeply moving, even if it is hard to believe the performance is quite as spontaneous as it appears.<br /><br />This is a film that is flawed. Unclear of the story it is trying to tell and tugged in different directions. Irritating, confusing, beautiful and emotional by turns. Watch it (listen to it) for the music and the feeling, but don't expect enlightenment or intellectual rigour.

I bought this movie for 99 cents at K-mart several years back (along with "Hawken's Breed") figuring anything with Gabriel Byrne and Amanda Donahoe is surely worth that much. It wasn't. "Dark Obsession" (the title I bought it under) was a slight cut above "Hawken's Breed" (IMBD rated at 2.4), but not enough to allow me to even keep it in the house. I threw both movies in the trash.<br /><br />This thing fails on so many levels it's hard to narrow it down, but let's just say it's tawdry, incredible, boring, hedonistic, confusing and even at 100 minutes, way too long.<br /><br />I love Byrne as an actor, but this schlock really looks bad on his resume.

Started watching this but didn't believe in any of the characters. In particular the relationship between the bakery assistant and the waitress just didn't work for me at all. The scenes between the bakery owner and the assistant were nice but the rest was just very slow. It was a very superficial movie and it gave me the feeling that I was watching play rather than a film. The characters were very 'stagey' and the storyline was a lot like a stage farce. By the time the pyromaniac waylaid the assistant I was bored and didn't care what happened next and so I switched off. Glad I didn't pay to see it. Didn't laugh or even smile once. There seems to be a strange tendency for Americans to classify their films as 'comedy' when they are funny peculiar rather than funny ha ha. I have finally learned to avoid what Americans term dark comedies which usually turn out to be gruesome weird and unfunny. Now it looks like I will have to be a bit more discerning when they call a film romantic comedy as well. Maybe comedy means something different when applied to a film rather than a series in America. I don't understand why America can produce amazingly funny comedies like Two and a half men, Will and Grace, King of Queens but can't seem to produce really funny films without resorting to toilet humour. This film wasn't gross or anything. But it wasn't anything at all just one big yawn...

Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony.

I first saw this movie on MST3K. And although I laughed my posterior off at the jokes, I don't particularly think this movie was all that bad. Sure it was a little hard to understand it is quite obviously low budget, But it had a very Hitchcock-like plot and I can honestly say that when I viewed the non-MST3K version, I was genuinely entertained. This movie is crying out for a Hollywood remake.

I could not agree more with the quote "this is one of the best films ever made." If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a "re-make," you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.<br /><br />Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).<br /><br />The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).<br /><br />More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.<br /><br />The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.<br /><br />This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).<br /><br />Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own.

Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.<br /><br />The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter. <br /><br />The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way. <br /><br />The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets. <br /><br />However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost). <br /><br />While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder. <br /><br />A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.<br /><br />7.4/10

I tend to be inclined towards movies about people who choose to cross the barriers of censorship, and express what they really want to express. Eric Bogosian's character of Barry is like Howard Stern, but much more intelligent. The character itself is very fascinating. As an Oliver Stone film, I guess I was expecting more. The film sags a bit during the third act. Plus, it's pretty obvious that "Talk Radio" is based on a play, with its long dialogue scenes. But overall, the film works. Bogosian is great in the lead, and the fact that he also wrote the play from which the movie was based on probably helped him. If you want to check out one of Stone's greater films, I better suggest you check out "JFK" or "Salvador." This is not his best work, but a good movie nonetheless.

I loved that the mood was light and airy. I loved that the lead character wanted guarantees about his future, and that his roommate sets him "straight" of all people. I loved that they tackled the dynamics of how the members in the men's group dealt with each other, considering this was directed by a lesbian,the whole theme of masculinity was put out there, ridiculed, dissected and questioned. What makes a man? What makes one straight, gay, or bisexual? You aren't really sure if our lead character has decided on who he really wants; he's living in the moment and thrown caution to the wind. These, and other reasons, make me love this film.

"Murder by Numbers" stars Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt as two rebellious high schoolers who are content on the perfect murder for the sake of overcoming their shattered self-esteem. Sandra Bullock plays the heroic thorn in the way of their plans as Det. Cassie Mayweather. This is nowhere near the traditional finger-pointing murder mystery as the film graciously reveals the killers to us (Gosling and Pitt). What the film does instead is concentrate on the purposes of their killings and if they have what it takes to commit the perfect murder. <br /><br />The title itself is a rightfully chosen one for various reasons mainly being that the "Numbers" in the title is the most vocal. The angle focusing on the reasons behind the heinous killings, although will haunt you with its chilling dialogue (especially from the callous boys), it doesn't fully live up exploring the origins of what lead them to their killing frenzy. The characters are riveting you have the good-looking rich kid Richard (Ryan Gosling) and the intelligent but socially awkward Justin (Michael Pitt). In school, they pretend that they despise one another, and even share a liking towards the a classmate name Lisa (Agnes Bruckner), but off-school they are allies and collaborate in a ritual in which murder is an escape to free the mind. <br /><br />Sure the story involving the boys seems exciting, but it's pushed in the background to a more mundane subplot involving Det. Mayweather (Bullock) who assumes their murders was because of discrimination (hence the arrogant looks of Gosling) and unexplained characteristics but manages to get it right. At first, the audience may despise Cassie's character due to the fact she's very headstrong and not very supportive. She displays dominance and control over her junior partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin). Even as he tries to reason with her, he knows it's a battle he surely won't likely win.<br /><br />The reason behind her tyrant behavior stems back in which Cassie was the sad victim of a crime that has left a permanent mental scar on her. This side-story does not have much of a place in this movie partially because it doesn't offer anything riveting with the main plot (the boys' murder spree). It also offers some development to Bullock's character in the movie but it's only a half-assed job and not very fulfilling. I would've liked it if they the diabolical students had a side-story. The resources were right there in front of them for the perfect crime foil, the creative schemes for the boys to manipulate the cops with their phony evidence and lies just to get out of a potential life-sentence in jail.<br /><br />Despite the lopsided sub-plots and the pointless "real killer" ending, "Murder By Numbers" sports a strong performance by a great cast. Sandra Bullock was convincing as the tough verbally remorseless cop who tries to shift her inner pain to a more positive light. Ben Chaplin shows his strength as the young detective who tries every way to understand his partner and is able to fend off her occasional tyrannical put-downs. But the scene stealer's are the devilish duo of Michael Pitt and Ryan Gosling as they keep you glued to their seat waiting for what they're going to do next. The chemistry of the boys is reminiscent to Matt Damon-Jude Law in "The Talented Mr. Ripley".

As was mentioned before in other comments, the major problem of NVA is that it cannot decide what it wants to be, slapstick of the cheapest kind or an honest parody of the East German Army. There are a couple of moments which are quite moving, for example when one of the recruits returns from the army prison in Schwedt with a completely broken personality. But in the end, Leander Haußmann goes for the infantile humour. No wonder the film flopped at the German box office as it's historically untruthful to the real situation in those training camps and led by an actor who is unfortunately incapable of giving a nuanced performance.<br /><br />However, there is the camera work of Frank Griebe who - as always - does a wonderful job. If it wasn't for his beautiful images I would have rated the film far worse.

A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around.

When I think of the cheesiest guilty pleasure-type movies, the first thing I think of are '80s slasher flicks. Really bad slasher flicks. The formulaic type of film, where all a script needed was 2 parts blood and several parts nudity to get made.<br /><br />Flash forward to the late '90s/early '00s. The slasher flick has been revitalized with the success of 1996's "Scream". Like in the '80s, these films were formulaic, masking a lack of inspiration by labelling themselves as "hip, tongue-in-cheek parodies" of the original slasher flicks. Of this recent blend of "hip parody" neo-slasher flicks, the only one worth seeing is the low-budget, direct-to-video "Cut".<br /><br />Like most of the other "new" slasher flicks, "Cut" relies on the production of a slasher flick, in this case a fictional 1985 film "Hot Blooded", to make its commentary on the genre. "Hot Blooded" never finished production, because of killings by someone wearing the mask of the film's killer, Scarman, a bald figure with its mouth stitched close and dark, pupil-less eyes. Now, 12 years later, a group of film students, whose professor was involved in the production, have decided to go into the vaults, tap the original surviving actress, and finish the film. But every time the film is screened or a scene is shot, "Scarman" returns and someone dies. To quote the tagline, will they finish the film before it finishes them?<br /><br />This all sounds really bad, and to a degree it is (really, is there such a thing as a good slasher flick?). There is no character development (the "new" director is revealed to be the daughter of "Hot Blooded"'s original director, whose life was apparently ruined after the production was cancelled; this would've been a perfect detail to be worked into the plot, yet it's never mentioned again) and, like in all other slasher flicks, there are just too many bodies to care about. The actors aren't great, even by direct-to-video standards, but most are having fun with their characters (and for those who aren't, it's inadvertent character acting, since none of their characters in the film wanted to work on "Hot Blooded"), particularly whoever was lucky enough to play Scarman. "Cut"'s climax has no big "who dunnit" unmasking of the killer like in the "Scream" films. It doesn't have the gimmick killings of the "Urban Legend" films. What it does have is an original and interesting concept that is diluted by a "this way we can write a sequel if it sells well" ending. But that's par for the course.<br /><br />By any sensible viewing standards, this is a horrible movie that should be avoided, but this "quality" is what makes it true to its roots in the slasher genre, and this is what makes it more enjoyable than any of the other neo-slasher flicks.

The first von Trier movie i've ever seen was breaking the waves. Sure a nice movie but it definitely stands in the shadow of europa. Europa tells a story of a young German-American who wants to experience Germany just after the second world war. He takes a job that his uncle has arranged for him as a purser on a luxues train. Because of his job, he travels all through an almost totally destroyed germany, meeting with the killing of traitors, and hunt for former nazi party members. The society is suffering from corruption. His uncle has narrowed his conciousness by focussing on the job he has also as a purser on the train. By coincidence the main character get involved in bombing and terrorism by a group called 'werewolves' they put pressure on him to help them placing bombs on trains. The atmosphere is astounding. The viewer is taken from scene to scene by a man attempting to put the viewer under hypnosis and then counting to wake you up in a new scene. Just when you think you've seen a lot!!!!!!! europe!!

I've watched this movie twice, and I plan to see it again. It is the movie that puts you in the director's place, regarding his romantic relations and the political situation in Israel. It also makes me cry because of remembering the wonderful time it was, and the horrible murder described there. It is really worth watching.

The credits at the end read "ALL directed by Shigeru Izumiya". That's a fitting way to phrase it because it seems like filmed material from several projects were thrown together somehow, barely even attempting to make it all form one consistent work. It more felt like one of those music clip things that are marketed as feature films to cash in on those video commercials, just that here we have the marketable music and the live performances missing, except for one scene, which may as well be marketed as a weird music video clip in Japan. Whatever.<br /><br />It makes zero sense. Visually it isn't too special either, although it has its moments (for example the female creature with the "death powder" who is strapped onto a bed base and some morphing sh!t throughout) and it certainly has an industrial-y feeling to it. Usually I'd call the effects dilettantish but what this film offers in this regard is baffling more than anything else. You remember those cheap video effects from 70's and 80's music videos that make them look so dated, like a picture within a picture flying through the screen? There is quite a lot of these kind of effects in this, and without any apparent reason. The most half-assed seeming effort comes in the form of a picture collage. The pictures sort of look like album covers. Whatever.<br /><br />I don't know what's up with the subtitles of the version I saw. The Chinese ones (or whatever those hieroglyphics are) sometimes seem to show up when nothing is even said and the English ones often show up without the Chinese ones. The English subs talk much about life without death (is it possible?), and a mind without a body, which provides what comes closest to a comprehensible conflict between characters in this film. One guy (a scientist dude) says that life without flesh is death while another guy (a metamorphosing dude) who claims his mind is beyond his body now that he got the "death powder" blown into his face and that he now knows the secrets of the flesh and whatnot; metamorphosing dude is visibly p!ssed off about the scientist dude's claim. Whatever.<br /><br />Erm, The End - All Written By Perception de Ambiguity

What can I say about Kramer vs. Kramer? On the surface it's rather simple but underneath it deals with emotions greater than life itself. It delivers many fantastic moments, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry. You sympathize with the characters and you care about them. Many films fail at this, Kramer vs. Kramer is a success.<br /><br />I think everyone would agree the acting is superb. Once you watch Kramer vs. Kramer, for some time the acting in most other films starts to feel plastic and unemotional. The actors seem to get along well with their roles and the characters really live on the screen. There's some beautiful chemistry between them. I think the best performance in the film comes from the young Justin Henry. He's different from any other child actor I've ever seen. He's amazingly natural.<br /><br />Also, there's some kind of neurotic beauty in Meryl Streep. And Dustin Hoffman delivers one of the best performances of his career! The story is very well written. It's simple but complicated at the same time. The concept is the simple part, the feelings associated is the complicated part of it.<br /><br />If you haven't seen this film yet, you're definitely missing out! See it now!

When it comes to creating a universe George Lucas is the undisputed master and his final Star Wars film is very, very good (and more appropriately rated in comparison to the two previous films in the original saga). Having recently seen Revenge of the Sith really puts this movie in perspective. The final battle seems even more climactic knowing what Anakin Skywalker went through at the manipulative hands of the Emperor. It also makes the final battle between Luke and Vader more bitter considering the love he felt for Padmé and the love she felt for her children. Actually while the new films (especially Episode II) are inferior to the original films they are good for one reason only. They make the old films seem even better.<br /><br />Mark Hamill does an exceptional job in this movie. He really brings the changes Luke has gone through seem real. In all fairness I believe that he should have become a big actor based on these films because he really does a great job. Harrison Ford is still good. However, you can feel that he has done Raiders and Blade Runner in between the two final chapters of Star Wars because he seems to have grown quite a bit. He adds more comedy (obviously inspired from Raiders) to the character which works brilliantly. In short Han Solo is better than ever. Carrie Fisher was never really a good actress but she does a decent job and is certainly passable. Ian McDiarmid appears in this film and having seen Episode III I can safely say that he is one of the most accomplished villains ever. James Earl Jones still provides the voice for Vader and he is still very, very good.<br /><br />In terms of how the movie looks its pretty safe to say that the Star Wars universe looks better than in either of the previous (two) movies but this was always Lucas' forté so that is really to be expected. The final battle over Endor is very well made both in terms of the general effects and tension wise. It was also a nice touch that Lucas decided to have three battles take place at the same time as it added to the overall tension of the climax. <br /><br />The only thing I feel is dragging the movie down from an otherwise deserved 9 are the Ewoks. These little creatures are so annoying they almost ruin every scene they are in. Besides I find it to be a little to kiddy when a group of teddy bears with bows and arrows can defeat a squadron of Storm Troopers with laser guns and mighty machinery.<br /><br />All in all Return of the Jedi is a very good movie but the fact that Richard Marquand is a less accomplished director than Irvin Kershner does that the overall feel of the movie is less than brilliant. Also George Lucas' stupid decision to add the Ewoks to the universe does that the film falls short of brilliance.<br /><br />8/10

I really can't say anything bad *or* good about this thing. Its characters are likable enough, it's capably produced and designed, and professional-looking (except for that cheesy monster suit). However, it has no originality, no ideas, and nothing you haven't seen in ALIEN, PREDATOR, ARMAGEDDON and/or OUTLAND. It's just another formula, cookie-cutter, "grimy corporate drones in deep space versus unstoppable monster" flick. Pretty much a waste of time.

TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, "no good at what I'm being a success at", and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.<br /><br />Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.<br /><br />This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.<br /><br />This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.<br /><br />The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.<br /><br />Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.<br /><br />Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.<br /><br />Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he "stinks" or "doesn't get it", Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.<br /><br />Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.<br /><br />James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star.

Unfortunately, one of the best efforts yet made in the area of special effects has been made completely pointless by being placed alongside a lumbering, silly and equally pointless plot and an inadequate, clichéd screenplay. Hollow Man is a rather useless film.<br /><br />Practically everything seen here has been done to death - the characters, the idea and the action sequences (especially the lift shaft!) - with the only genuinely intriguing element of the film being the impressive special effects. However, it is just the same special effect done over and over again, and by the end of the film that has been done to death also. I was hoping before watching Hollow Man that the Invisible Man theme, which is hardly original in itself, would be the basis of something newer and more interesting. This is not so. It isn't long before the film turns into an overly-familiar blood bath and mass of ineffectual histrionics - the mound of clichés piles up so fast that it's almost impressive.<br /><br />On top of all this, Kevin Bacon does a pretty useless job and his supporting cast are hardly trying their best. Good points might be a passable Jerry Goldsmith score (but no competition for his better efforts), a quite interesting use of thermal imagery and the special effects. I was tempted to give this film three out of ten, but the effects push Hollow Man's merit up one notch.<br /><br />4/10

And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.<br /><br />Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.<br /><br />He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.<br /><br />The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.<br /><br />Check this out. It's good. *** outta ****

This movie sucks so bad. Its funny to see what a poor story this has, where two pea-brained American twins who know about nothing outside their school can come to another continent, and do unimaginable things there. Its just so stupid and so bizarre. How can they just find two French guys, hit on them and in the end kiss them, not knowing anything about them? More realistic would have been having the guys take them away and rape them, which could have easily happened in such a situation. As for the bit where they make the French President drink 'bad water', that was just lame. I don't think he would have been too pleased in real life. Everything worked out too easily for the girls, and they could have been in real trouble many times in the movie, if it at all depicted real life.<br /><br />My Rating : 0 / 10

Do you ever wonder what is the worst movie ever made? Stop wondering. I'm telling you, Michael is it!<br /><br />It is not "heartwarming," "entertaining," or "Travolta at his best." It just sucks. If I had kids, I would let them watch Deep Throat before Michael!<br /><br />A sold-out John Travolta, a washed-up and balding William Hurt, and an about to die any time now Jean Stapleton highlight this turd of a film.<br /><br />But wait...you'll get to hear Andie McDowell sing! Yeah. Hollywood really s**t all over us with this one!

Saw this film during the Mod & Rockers fest in August. I was so inspired and touched. Harry had an amazing life and one of the best and distinct voices ever recorded. For those of you who don't know about Harry Nilsson do a little research and you'll see that Harry has probably found his way into your life in one way or another - maybe it was his 70s special "The Point" or "Everybody's Talking" from Midnight Cowboy. For me it started with "people let me tell you bout my best friend" - the theme song from "The Courtship of Eddie's Father." Watching this film you can really feel the love and admiration from Harry's true friends and peers. Don't shed a tear for Harry - he had a ball...<br /><br />Brett

It looks b grade and you will probably think there is no reason to rent this film! But do! I expected nothing from this movie, just something to pass the time, but I was hooked from the start! Two interesting premises - A bank robbery gone wrong, a million dollars missing and two girls on the road to start a new life - How will these two stories collide? Just when you think you know what direction the movie is headed, it does a 180 and you are left blown away by the great twists in the plot! It has a great but unexpected ending, and you are left wanting more - always a good sign - rent it or even buy it, you will not be disappointed!

This movie was an all around uninspiring film. It was a non-moving story that definitely does not get you thinking anything other then where is all the strong moving material the other critics say about the film The 3 main actors are good, and there is a few laughs but once again it becomes another movie that you keep watching in hopes of it getting better and it just doesn't. I watched this movie last night and wished that we hadn't wasted our precious time (while baby is sleeping) watching this film. <br /><br />I plan not to recommend this to my family and friends, as well as obviously anyone looking to rent it. I was pretty much non-impressed with everything about this film.

In fact, the nature of the whole series is irrepressibly funny! But not always funny... there are moments of extreme poignance as the deeper aspects of human emotion are touched on. <br /><br />Over and again, the series comments on the frailties of human nature and the life long, or in this case eternal, struggle to overcome them. Monkey is both smart and stupid at the same time, his arrogance and reliance on his own martial skills lead him into trouble in almost every episode. Pigsy is just plain gross. Sandy has a philosophical turn of mind. He has many of the wittiest lines. <br /><br />The English translation is a delight. "Ignorance can always be improved upon," drawls Sandy in his laid-back manner, "but you can't do anything to help stupidity!" "Who are you?" the group of travellers are asked. "We three kings of Orient are," says Monkey. <br /><br />This is not just for children, it is a magical romp for anyone who can suspend reality

I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it. How can you name a movie "Keys to Tulsa" and then film it in Texas? The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in. Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it. Hadn't anyone at least seen Rumblefish or The Outsiders? I know this sounds picky but I can't help it. I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting. But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!! I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma. What if "To Live and Die in LA" had been shot in Toronto? Would that suck? Well so does this.

This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)<br /><br />

Oh my god what a story! This movie is very good and it had to be God who had this happen! You did a awesome job.The acting was really good you picked the right actors for sure. This movie is so good I am really glad you made this because if you had not then I would have never ever known about this story because I am not a big golf fan and I think it is kinda boring so thank you. I really enjoyed it and that is why I gave the movie a 10\10.I liked Shia Labouf too he was perfect for the roll of Fransis Quimet. I hope most of that stuff you put in there was true also. Oh and some parts were funny and others I was just really happy.

Interesting? Hardly. The 'scientific evidence' the movie provides for its point (which is basicly that Jews are a cancer) is so stupid and lame, it's almost laughable (if we didn't know what happened in that era).<br /><br />Important? Nah. I can't imagine Germans (even at that horrid time) would like or believe this movie. Compare it to Riefenstahl's Triumf des Willens. Now that was I movie I was impressed with. This is just silly garbage.<br /><br />'Best' part is a scene from M (one of my all-time favorites) where (the jew, as the announcer so eloquently keeps reminding us) Lorre plays a child-molester and murderer. In the eyes of these film-makers, only a depraved mind can do so. Uh-huh. Didn't know M was Hitler's favorite movie, right?<br /><br />No, it's just plain STUPID. Even for it's nazi-propaganda genre. 2/10.

I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.<br /><br />I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???<br /><br />Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10

Acting 10, Script 1. "Hurlyburly" is from that unfortunate postmodern school of theatre that has declared anything resembling a story or plot is forbidden. While people may get away with this on stage, on film it becomes deadly -- or at least deadly dull. We're left with a bunch of great actors spouting dialogue that, while brilliantly written, adds up to nothing. Even worse, every character speaks with the same voice despite their backgrounds. The only attempt to differentiate is to have teen-waif Anna Paquin use the word "ain't."<br /><br />Never mind that the characters are unsympathetic losers to the extreme, the camera work is plain sloppy and (for LA residents) the attention to geography is laughable. (Hint: the view out Sean Penn's front window is about eight miles away from the view out his back window, and you can't drive south through Hollywood and wind up in Glendale pretending to be Burbank.) Okay, suspension of disbelief and all that -- and normally I wouldn't pay attention to little things like that, because they are just vagaries of production. But, the fact that they did stick out so much despite the thespian pyrotechnics on screen says a lot about the weakest element of this enterprise -- the script.<br /><br />In short, skip this one, even on video. Rabe picked the wrong quote from the Scottish Play for his title; Hurlyburly would have been better named "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." A bit long for the marquee, perhaps -- but at least it would be honest advertising.

Enchanted April was one of Harry Beaumont's last movies- he only directed a few more after this one. He had made the "Maisie" movies in the 1930s and 1940s. In the opening credits, it says "From the novel by Elizabeth", and completely leaves off the author's last name... rather odd, but since it was von Armin, they may not have wanted the German association at the time... Sad to hear it was a flop when it was released, with those fun names like Frank Morgan (the Wizard) and Jessie Ralph, who played W.C. Fields' disapproving mother- in- law in "Bank Dick". Two gals in London (Ann Harding & Katharine Alexander) decide to rent a castle to host two of their friends, but things don't go the way they planned. Reginald Owen plays the husband with multiple personalities. Aside from a few funny moments, it DOES move pretty slow. Ralph is the only bright spot here, as the overbearing take-charge type, and the picture is quite fuzzy and out of focus for much of the film. The views of Italy are all obvious backdrops. The only saving grace here is that the Turner Classic version is only 66 minutes long. Too bad they didn't give Frank Morgan a larger role. This was remade in 1992 by the BBC as a British Film.

I haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.<br /><br />I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me. <br /><br />Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, "Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like" is beyond me.<br /><br />Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.

Three young college women, Simona (Iva Krajnc), Alja (Tanja Potocnik), and Zana (Pia Zemljic), go on an adventure canoing down the River Kolpa, dividing their Slovenia from neighboring Croatia, in this 2002 Slovenian film by Maya Weiss. What could have been an Eastern European version of the well-known and exciting 1972 "Deliverance" turned out, for me, to be utterly uninspiring with flat character portrayals that denied sympathetic identification with the characters.<br /><br />Alja and Zana are not convincing as students at all, though Alja expresses a desire to be a writer, and both use what seemed to me to be excessive bad language. Alja is bored with her boyfriend and seems to just be drifting along in life. Zana, even less scholarly, is a self-absorbed adventure seeker with an attraction to other women. I had some sympathy with relatively innocent Simona, conservative and starry eyed. The very idea of these three traveling together just doesn't work for me. The disdain that Zana and Alja show toward Simona makes no sense - why would they choose her as a travel companion to start with as surely they must know her demeanor and attitudes?<br /><br />The three begin a carefree journey down the river on two canoes, undeterred by a news story of a woman's disappearance along the river. Things become more somber with the mysterious appearance, sometimes real and sometimes possibly hallucinatory, of a rabidly conservative fisherman politician (Jonas Znidarsic).<br /><br />I did enjoy the scenes along the river and of small villages the trio visit. It may be because of a lack of cultural understanding, but the film didn't move me otherwise. I was surprised to see that the film has won some awards.

This is a fascinating documentary about a 15 year old black lad who is accused of murdering a tourist in Florida and the subsiquent court case that follows. What this film shows is how corrupt the American police system is and how easy it can really be to convict an innocent man and how a senile old fool who thinks one black man looks very much like another and sod it if he rots in jail because i said he was the man who murdered my wife.The star is the defence lawyer who is brilliant at not only his job in court but he also did he what the police should have done all along. Fascinating stuff. 7 out of 10.

The people who bash this movie were looking for it to be as cool and slick as the first one, which this isn't. This movie was supposed to be the complete opposite as Ocean's 11. This has been said by a lot of the cast members and also the director, Steven Soderbergh. Ocean's 12, while it did lack a gripping plot, is being bashed because it was different then what people wanted. If it were released before Ocean's 11, it would be taken much differently, not as a failed sequel. The problem with sequels is people go into it with a preset idea of what it should be like it and have lots of expectations. They should go into this movie with an open mind and not expect it to be "Ocean's 11, again".

Apparently Ruggero Deodato figured out, early on, that his story wouldn't work if he approached it too seriously, so he decided to camp it up. The result is a film that can be viewed as either a ludicrous sword-and-sorcery epic or as a very entertaining comedy! And I think I'll go the second way. The brief gore moments are well-done, the Paul Brothers openly mock the material (they even bark at each other in one scene!), and there is also a charming, spirited, good-natured performance by Eva La Rue, as the girl who tags along with the "boys". Plus, where else can you see the insides of a dragon lighted like a discotheque?? (***)

Well, the movie did turn out a lot better than i expected. It's not boring and it's not unoriginal. It's really not a silly romantic comedy. The situations the characters put themselves in are very unusual, of course, we're still talking about a movie, but the main characters are indeed plausible. Donald is, of course, an exaggeration, but he's just a pawn in the movie, a means to prove something. The ending isn't one of those ridiculously happy, always the same, moral containing pieces of crap you can usually see in movies of the genre. I genuinely liked it and i'm hard to please when it comes to this particular genre of movies. It's worth a watch. Besides, it's better directed than other movies, the story line always stands up, the characters themselves stand up. And they do not experience this miraculous change and love is not revealed to them like a holly god given artifact, yada, yada. At the end of it all you actually see yourself going through it all, the movie makes you feel something, you may even learn a thing or two. It's not the usual hope-producing, tissue moistening idiocy. It's a good movie, not a consolation prize for teary women around the world.

Although some may call it a "Cuban Cinema Paradiso", the movie is closer to a How Green Was My Valley, a memory film mourning for a lost innocence. The film smartly avoids falling into a political trap of taking sides (pro-Castro? anti-Castro?, focusing instead in the human frailty of the characters and the importance of family. Filled with good acting, in particular from Mexican actress Diana Bracho, who plays Keitel's wife. A masterpiece, filled with references to classic movies, from CASABLANCA to Chaplin's CITY LIGHTS. Gael Garcia Bernal plays a small role which is critical for the dramatic payoff of the story. TV director Georg Stanford Brown, in a rare return to acting (remember THE ROOKIES?), plays a homeless bum who acts as Greek chorus, superbly. It is a pity that this movie, originally titled DREAMING OF JULIA, has been released in the States by THINKfilm with the atrocious title of CUBAN BLOOD, which has nothing to do with the movie.

This is a gory mess and pretty convincing. Corbin Bernson is very much in command of this movie with his slick portrayal of the loony control freak eponymous practitioner. Linda Hoffman plays his cheating wife and she is very easy on the eye - unfortunately for her, the little "tryst" with the pool guy brings severe punishment in a way the good doctor knows best - shame about that pretty smile! The last half hour of the movie is devoted to Bernson's character losing it completely and the spotlight falls on a young actress called Virginya Keehne. An extremely talented performer, she hogs the limelight from the moment the braces come off. Nice legs, too!

I have just finished watching this movie, and for me.... it takes ages to finish because it is so boring.....and the storyline is extremely bad.<br /><br />now... where should i start....O.... the movie is called "sinking of japan" ....yeah yeah... it does show that japan is actually sinking but the action part is very bad. Compare to the movie "the day after tomorrow" i would have rate it at least 8/10.<br /><br />The "sinking of Japan" does not show much about the disaster that actually happening right in front of our eyes. there isn't much excitement at all...boring... all i can say...<br /><br />one more point... i would recommend this movie to have a better title... maybe something like "the romance of sinking of japan" because this movie does have lots of talkings (waste of time... talk nonsense) & the love story is extremely boring & have been dragging too long...honestly.. i almost get frustrated.<br /><br />Overall... this movie does not show enough details of the disasters e.g. many people running like hell to avoid death..love story part was extremely not touching enough for me.<br /><br />but hey... there is one thing we should appreciate about this movie though.... & its has got good songs!

Just how exactly do gay Asians manage in a culture that generally refuses to even recognize the concept of homosexuality? For millions of gay Hindus and Muslims there seems little hope of ever leading a life that is accepted and endorsed by their otherwise very close knit families. This is the main point explored in Chicken Tikka Masala - presumably named after the Western spicy dish involving tender pieces of young chicken flesh! Jimmy is a typical young Asian brought up in Britain by traditional parents with the common narrow minded and selfish views on marriage and grandchildren. Like millions of others he is led into an arranged marriage that seems inescapable even though he is apparently completely gay and deeply involved with a very attractive young man with whom he lives. He knows that the truth should be told but fears for the consequences of that particularly so as his father appears to be terminally ill. And so he becomes embroiled in a web of deceit that becomes wider and wider as the plot develops.<br /><br />The film is beautifully sensitive and not at all judgmental or patronizing to any group portrayed. The acting is generally excellent although it might seem a bit ham in places as the director tends to search for humor rather than letting it blossom naturally. There are no prizes for photography or script but the film is made entire by the wonderful sentiment expressed at the very end - a sentiment that all fathers across the world would do well to learn from.

I have just seen Today You Die. It is bad, almost very bad.<br /><br />1) The direction and editing are awful, just awful. Almost made me turn off the movie, Fauntleroy (the director) has no idea what he is doing, he seems to be filming things at random and some scenes don't make sense at all. Also, I hate it when the same scene is used again in the same movie, in this movie some scenes were used 3 or 4 times. Pretty bad.<br /><br />2) The dialogue is sometimes good, sometimes awful. I like the fact that they wanted to make Seagal's character and Treach's character seem like they were in a similar relationship to the characters in Lethal Weapon, but it did not work simply because some of the dialogue DID NOT MAKE SENSE, and I speak English very well, it's not that I did not understand the words, it was the fact that the jokes and dialogue lines had no meaning whatsoever.<br /><br />3) The script is pretty bad. Why do they always try to complicate DTV action movies? Seagal's wife in the movie has psychic abilities, why? Is it useful to the movie? NO. Seagal eliminates a whole bunch of people who work for the guy who betrayed him and he knows these people without having ever met them in the movie. STUPID. The story sometimes goes off track and the jumps back without any reason. The story is messy and pointless sometimes. They should have kept it simple and it would have worked.<br /><br />4) In some of the action scenes it is not Seagal, it is his stunt double. You can tell because they only film him from behind and never show his face. He also beats the guys with movie martial arts, not real ones like the aikido Steven knows. The stunt double uses cheesy kicks and punches.<br /><br />5) Steven is good in the movie. 90-95% of the lines are said with his real voice. The rest is dubbing but it is not that bad. This was good. Also Steven seems to be enjoying himself in the movie and is more into the action that he was in Submerged. He likes Treach as a partner; at least he does not seem to dislike him. Also, he seems to have been in better shape than in some of his recent movies. I hate the fact that he wears clothes to hide his body, but in the same clothes that he wears on the DVD cover he looks more than OK and he should have wore those clothes for most of the movie not the stupid long leather coat.<br /><br />I really think that Seagal was willing to make a good movie. The fact that he came late and took off early from the set ON TWO MOVIES directed by Fauntleroy does not look like a coincidence to me. I think he realized that the crew were amateurs or only in it for a quick buck and he did not give a damn anymore.<br /><br />In the hands of a better company and crew this might have been a damn good action movie for Seagal. Something like Out for Justice or Above the Law. I honestly believe that. But the people who made the movie are not very good at their jobs or they did not have enough money to do the job properly. Too bad since I liked Steven in the movie and Treach was cool (Ice Cool ) too, but the rest was bad. Hey, at least this gives me hope for Black Dawn and Shadows of the past. I think that Mercenary might be just as badly handled. But hey, Steven seemed to be back into the same mood he was in while making his better movies and at least THAT is reason enough to watch the movie.<br /><br />I liked it, but it could have been SO much better. 4/10

I try to catch this film each time it's shown on tv, which happily is quite often. But I keep forgetting to video it. As it is, I practically know the script by heart, but that doesn't stop me having a good cry, in fact it probably adds to it as I cry knowing what's coming next. It's such a lovely film - well made, well cast, good photography. I love it. One of my top ten films.

For me this movie was a disappointment. Somehow I expected that it would explain the reason for General Rommel's popularity and his success as a military strategist in WW II. But there is none of that, it deals with the last year or two of his life and tries, in a way, to whitewash him. So I just have to suppose that Rommel was primarily an amoral and apolitical technocrat in the conquering and killing business, without any particular charm or notoriety in behaviour. Such real life people just do not make good movie material. I almost feel sorry for James Mason, really one of my favorite actors, who had to impersonate a pretty wooden character. Actually, a good director and a lot of great acting talent was wasted on this movie – with the exception of Luther Adler who gives a really memorable and weirdly naturalistic portrayal of Adolf Hitler.<br /><br />There might also be a cultural problem for people like me who are part of the German speaking world. Famous British actors impersonating Germans are just not credible. Rommel, for example, is perceived here not just as a German but as a typical „Southerner" from Baden-Württemberg. You immediately think of a certain dialect, a certain kind of wit, a certain way of seeing the world (the total opposite of eg a Prussian „junker"). I also think that there are now mixed feelings about the assassination attempt of July 20th, many of those who were in on the conspiracy were not democrats and just wanted the German troops to join the Western Allies against the advancing Bolsheviks (thus prolonging the war forever).<br /><br />The best movie portrayal of an intellectual, intelligent military mind is in my opinion still Patton (1970). Incidentally, General Patton can be glimpsed for a short moment in the ample documentary footing used for this movie, a low angle shot while he is inspecting passing vehicles. The open holster and the revolver with the mother of pearl grips are clearly visible!

Well, I AM "the target market" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our "Highly Recommended" video list.<br /><br />

This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame.

Men of Honor stars Cuba Gooding Jr., as real life Navy Diver Carl Brashear who defied a man's Navy to become the first African American Navy Diver. Sometimes by his side and sometimes his adversary there was one man who Carl Brashear really admired. His name was Master Chief Billy Sunday (Robert DeNiro). Sunday in a lot of ways pushed, aggravated and helped Carl become the man he wanted to be. <br /><br />I loved Cuba in this film. His portrayal here is as liberating and as powerful as Denzel Washington was in The Hurricane. Through every scene we can see his passion, motivation and stubbornness to achieve his dream. We can see the struggle within in him as he embarks to make his father proud. I also loved how the director created and brought forth a lot of tension in some of the key diving scenes. Brashear's encounter with a submarine during a salvage mission is heart-stopping and brilliant. <br /><br />The only fault I could see would have to lie in the supporting cast. Cuba and DeNiro's characters are very intricate and exciting to watch. Which does make you a little sad when they have to butt heads with such two-dimensional supporting characters. The evil Lt. Cmdr. Hanks, Sunday's wife (Charlize Theron), the eccentric diving school colonel (Hal Holbrook) and Cuba's love interest are the characters I found to not have very much depth. What could have made these characters more substantial and more effective was a little more time to develop them. Why was that colonel always in his tower? How come Sunday's wife was so bitter and always drunk?<br /><br />Another curious question has to be this. What happened to Carl Brashear's wedding? I mean if this film is chronicling this man's life wouldn't his wedding be an important event? Maybe it's just me. Men of Honor, however, is a perfect example of the triumph and faith that the human spirit envelops. This film will inspire and make you feel for this man's struggle. Which I do believe was the reason this powerful story was told. My hat goes off to you Carl Brashear. I really admire your strength.<br /><br />

Robert Taylor as the mad buffalo hunter Charlie Gilson is the main character in this film. At the beginning I was thinking that Charlie would end up redeeming himself like John Wayne in The Searchers or James Stewart in The Naked Spur. But as the film goes along Gilson keeps doing more atrocities until you realize there is no hope for him. Stewart Granger is Sandy McKenzie, who wants to stop hunting because he realizes that the buffaloes will soon be gone and he becomes disgusted by the act of killing. Gilson is a natural killer who makes no distinction between animals or human beings. Debra Paget as the Indian girl is a surprising character considering the self imposed censorship of that time. She lies with Gilson in total resignation even though she hates him. The last scene of a frozen Gilson, is unforgettable.

I am of "the Christopher Reeve Generation" it is fair to say that he was the best actor to play Superman yet, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying other actors in the role, and George Reeves makes a pretty good bid to knock Chris off the top, though he just barely falls short. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this film, it has a lot going for it. It has all that a movie needs, a plot with beginning, middle, and end, plus all those parts are intelligently written. The film is edgy both in acting and storyline, something a film-noir but with tights. The story is both exciting and meaningful, this is a movie with a message that isn't too preachy. I am still amazed this was shot over 12 days, oh the glory days of Hollywood, when we didn't have to wait 5 years just to see if the movie would fall into development hell... The film is polished and expertly made, directed by Lee "Roll'em" Sholem, best known for directing with both speed and efficiency. It never lets the constraints of technology slow it down, in fact there is some creative things done to create the effect of flight, including putting a camera on a boom on a truck and shooting high and traveling fast to make it look like we are seeing it from Superman's point of view, also a few closeups of George in process work, and a long shot of an animated Superman. <br /><br />This is now available on DVD as an extra feature on the first season of the George Reeves Television series. A DVD worth owning in its own right, the inclusion of the film as its original whole, is icing on the cake.<br /><br />Give Blood Today God Bless!

I discovered this late one night on Turner Classics. I kept saying to myself "I'll turn it off as soon as it stops being funny", but needless to say I watched the whole way through.<br /><br />I am a movie junkie but I had never even HEARD of this movie (or if I did in 1971, I forgot). It's worth watching just for the performance of Goldie Hawn as the tart-tongued ingénue. Her acting is a revelation in this movie. Yes, the script is sharp and excellent (when was the last time they made a Hollywood comedy with a smart script?) but her acting is extraordinary. I never realized how funny Goldie could be, and it makes her later appearances in roles such as Laugh-In and Private Benjamin a little sad. In her later career she is far too over-the-top compared to her minimalist, wickedly funny appearance here.<br /><br />It's a pleasure watching the young Matthau, the great Bergman and the stellar supporting cast, but it's Goldie Hawn that will make this movie worth watching again.