Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds

like 0

This movie is a great attempt towards the revival of traditional Indian values which are being replaced by western ones.Its a joint family story showing all the ethics every person should follow while communicating with every single relative around.Shahid Kapoor gives a gr88 performance as a desi about to tie knot with Amrita Rao who is also very Desi and she also acts pretty well...The genre of the movie is the same as HAHK and such movies deserve to be made in India for the revival of old traditional values...The movies doesn't get 10 as it isn't very good at music which counts a lot in every movie,besides this it is flawless....

Where do I begin with the Killing Mind before I mention the good bit? This movie is about a young psychological profiling FBI woman, or something, that for some reason goes to work for the LAPD for a wee while. There are some recognisable faces, like the "I love you, man" bloke from Wayne's World, playing a cop (nice beard-age too!) and two guys who always seem to play cops playing..... you guessed it, cops. One of them was one of the cops in Gross Point Blank following John Cusack about the place, and the other is the FBI guy with specs in Final Destination, who is also in the Fugitive as another cop. I know the FBI, US Marshalls, CIA, etc aren't cops, but they're all the same. They enforce the law to a certain degree, that makes them cops in my book. Feel free to disagree with the definition of a cop all you want, they're still seen as the ones who are trying to bring the bad guys down. Any, I digress. The woman is working alongside these cops who just seem to sit around in a library in the basement or something, and for some unknown reason decides to reopen a case that hasn't been looked at for yonks. She saw the dead body as a kid, so naturally decided that she can reopen the case cos she was personally attached to it! I also like how the person profiling other people's psychological state witnessed a murder scene as a child. Surely that's the kind of thing that can screw with someone's head?! She starts asking questions off some journalist who covered the story when it was open, even though he appears to be the same age as the woman, so he presumably was either writing for a newspaper when he was 10, or he wrote a few school reports on it, and she decided he'd be the best person to ask about it.<br /><br />We then see that as well as reopening homicide cases from 25 years earlier, she tries her hand at petty theft as some really inconspicuous bloke sprints through a busy street wearing a balaclava. Way to blend, moron! Anyway, she and the cops she's with eating ice creams in the park give chase after him, and whilst crossing a bridge with a woman and child standing on it, the thief grabs the baby from the mother's arms and throws the baby in the river. This, if you haven't already guessed, is the best bit of the movie. I'm not sadistic, and don't have a hatred for babies or anything, but the scene just looks so stupid I promise you will wet your pants laughing at it if you should watch this movie. It gets better when the cop from Final Destination & the Fugitive jumps in to rescue the baby then declares to his friend "It's a baby!" How did he not know that before he jumped in, is beyond me.<br /><br />Anyway, she chases after the thief but loses him. Later on she remembers that a random dog didn't bark at the thief, so assumed it must be his and decided to track down the thief through the dog. The dog had no markings or anything on it, so how she knew where to find the dog, and thus find the thief is another question I won't go into. it was shortly after this that I stopped watching. The story was moving really slowly, and after I had stopped laughing at the baby throwing bit, I had kind of lost interest and missed what was being said.<br /><br />Saying that, I'll go ahead and assume that the killer was the journalist bloke because he seemed a bit shifty, and she was spending a lot of time with him, and anyone who watches Columbo knows that the person outside the police force who spends most time with the investigating officer is your bad guy. plus, other people's reviews say the killer was pretty obvious, so I'm sure it was him.<br /><br />So all in all, a pants film, but worth watching just for that one glorious scene.

I don't understand the humor in this film. I also found it offensive on how Koreans were depicted in that film, despite how it is actually just a caricature of Koreans in those areas. First, the actors are Japanese, and they make the most rude expressions of Koreans in that film. It disgusts me on how these people are expressed. I felt anger just watching that one scene, and how they were so badly made out in the film. The humor lasts just for one laugh, and then you don't understand why it's even funny. It's crude humor with the most disgusting representation of society there. I found it to be an offensive film overall... Maybe it was just because I never lived in the "hood" or saw any "hood" movies, but I don't intend to either.

This film was really terrible.<br /><br />However , it's worth seeing , as it features the worlds most unnecessarily extended sex scene ever. I mean , this thing went on for about 7 - 8 minutes (repeating the same 'moves' over and over), thats almost 10 % of the whole film! I haven't laughed as hard as I laughed at that for a long time.<br /><br />There were some seriously strange and pointless goings on in this film, but the one that I found funniest was when (for no reason whatsoever) a helicopter lands and 5 or 6 guys in orange suits run in to the complex near the end. 2 minutes later they run out again. What the hell was that for?? Also , the tiny white forklift that magically changed into a huge yellow digger was pretty classic. I'm led to beleive that this is because they used footage from the 'carnosaur' trilogy to patch up this absolute donkey. I'm gonna have to see those now!<br /><br />The film is worth watching for a laugh or two , but if you dont find bad movies funny, stay away!

I almost burst into tears watching this movie. Not from laughing but from the memories of a great Rodney Dangerfield movie. Candyshack was his first and stole the movie, Easy Money had him at his best, and Back To School is by far an 80's classic masterpiece. Then there was Ladybugs and that's when it started to show. Poor Rodney was getting old (Meet Wally Sparks was a slight step up from Ladybugs but not saying much). <br /><br />In My 5 Wives Rodney plays Monte (a name he must love since that was his name in Easy Money) a rich (isnt he always) guy who loves women and gets married like its nothing. Well now he inherits a huge piece of land and since the land was run by the Amish, he inherits 5 Wives. This sounds like a great idea for a Dangerfield movie. The problem is EVERYTHING. The script is so poor that Rodney seems to be saying his one liners to the camera and all the side characters have nothing to do. The movie looks like it was shot on video with some really poor stunt sequences that are obviously not Rodney. Andrew Dice Clay plays a gangster who looks like he is dying to say the F word (which he should since the film is rated R but plays as if it was PG) and Jerry Stiller has a nice 2 minute cameo. Don't get me wrong, at times I did laugh at a few of Rodney's jokes but the poor man is getting way too old and way too slow. We can see his jokes coming from miles. And the film turns way too PC which thanks to the horrible 1990's, the 70's and 80's Rodney just doesn't work anymore.

yeah, it's a bit of a silly film, so if you are looking for an oscar performance, forget this one......but, if you love John Candy's humor, this is a must-see. We lost John Candy before he made enough of his great brand of comedy, and he is only better in one movie: Planes, Trains, & Automobiles (with Steve Martin). Excellent supporting performance by Eugene Levy, perhaps his best work ever as the hot-headed Sal DiPasquale. Also good acting by Richard Libertini, Alley Mills & Pat Hingle. You must see this obscure and out-of-print film if you are a John Candy or Eugene Levy fan.

honestly, i don't know what's funnier, this horrific remake, or the comments on this board. Masterpiece's review had me in tears, that's so funny. Anyway, this movie is the among the worst movies ever, and certainly the bottom of the barrel for sequels. The "Omen" name on the title made me stop and watch it this morning on HBO, but it's a slap in the face to the other three, especially the original. There are so many classically bad moments, but my favorite is the guy catching fire from the juggler at the psychic fair!! good times ! This movie is to the Omen series what "Scary Movie" is to the entire genre. Avoid unless you're looking for a good laugh.

This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen? <br /><br />The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself. <br /><br />Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.

Free Willzyx (Stupidest name/title ever) is the worst episode of ANY of the TV shows I watch, which includes X-Files, Alias, All 3 Law And Orders, All of the CSI's, Family Guy, Simpsons, Chappelle's Show, Colbert Report, and more. South Park was for very long my favorite of the comedy shows, because of it's shockingly obscene content and disturbing black comedy. Free Willzyk has NONE of the content I mentioned earlier. It was so tame, so unoffensive it might has well been an episode of Sesame Street. Kyle goes to Sea World where a few of the workers play a prank on him, making him think a whale is talking to him. He BEFRIENDS THE WHALE, actually BEFRIENDS IT. Hello? This is South Park! the same show that brought you "Cancelled", "Chickenlover", "It Hits The Fan", "Death Camp Of Tolerance", and so many more! Not SpongeBob SquarePants! Ugh. I actually watched the whole episode, which is 30 minutes of my life I will never get back. Anyhow, I was extremely disgusted with this episode and I can't believe the shocking decline in the quality of Matt & Trey's work.

This movie clearly has an agenda, which could be summed up like this: Never, never cross the border (either physical or metaphorical). Let's shun everything that's on the other side with a wall or a fence or something else, let's pretend all "gringos" are evil, satanic, or drug dealers. All that is outside one's country's border (and specially US borders) is dangerous, malevolent and people there will hate you, or envy you or try to steal you or something else. The "based on true events" is only a perverse tag that can be pinned on anything to give it some aura of credibility or, in this case, just to help pushing the film's ideology down some naïve throats out there. The perversity of the film lies in the fact that it reduces countries, people and all else into very black and white stereotyped categories: Mexicans into disgusting people, Mexican police into a bunch of corrupt cops, republicans into the right-wing morons, democrats into almost hippie humanists and so forth. Is there anything good about the film? I hardly think so, but may be you think differently.

I give this film it's props that it is very well made and reasonably well acted. BUt I couldn't get past the implausibility of the whole thing.<br /><br />First and foremost, a game built around the notion of "Russian Roulette" that has to fill on hour. the big problem is that if you are doing a "live" show, you run the possibility that your first contestant will be the one unlucky enough to draw the "real" bullet. Then what do you do? You have 50 minutes of show to fill and nothing to show. The corollary is that Okay, you get to the end and the first five contestants survive, which means number six has the bullet and can't possibly get the payout. He isn't going to shoot himself at that point, so it's kind of anti-climatic. <br /><br />second problem, almost as big. Human nature. People are going to flinch, panic, soil their underwear and do things that would otherwise not make very good television. Too much randomness. That's why "real" Reality television is actually tightly scripted and even more tightly edited.<br /><br />(The only random thing is the "performance artist's" rant about female sacrifices, which were actually rare historically. Even that was predictable, since she went through with shooting herself to no effect.) <br /><br />We are led to believe the shows ratings would increase while it was going on at 1 AM in the morning (unlikely) with the token Asian girl announcing each boost in ratings.<br /><br />A point on race and sex. Big surprise the movies two minority (one gay) and two female contestants are the ones who survive. So we are left with the two white males, and of course, the slightly less likable of them is the one who buys it. The purpose of such a show would be it's randomness, but the guy you like the least is the guy who dies.<br /><br />the Climax is that after spending two hours fighting for televised suicide, the Eva Mendes character (Mendes produced and starred in this thing, so she has no one to blame but herself) actually grows a conscience when someone dies. What did she THINK was going to happen? She is promptly shot by a bystander angry about the whole thing (motives never explained) and the show went on to be a big hit. Really? <br /><br />the problem with media satire is that it has to either have some grounding in reality or it has to be so over the top to be ludicrous (like Network). This is neither.

You've got to think along the lines of Last Tango in Paris for this one because the mood and emotion runs along the same lines and maintains the same heights - the difference being that in this exceptional, intense and torrid depiction of love among the ruins of a Dostoyevskyian dispossessed the setting is a gay-subcultural milieu - perhaps even one that is set to vanish in time, and not the equally arresting but heterosexual context of Bertolucci's own film.<br /><br />The last third of this film depicts a passionate love never seen in gay cinema. To talk of pornography or gay self-effacement misses the point and intelligence of this work. This film, though on first impression appears to take us into the familiar & often depicted underworld of gay street-life, then precedes to subvert the rules of this genre by exaggerating it to a super-real degree. The result is a hyper-charged emotional heightening - an exceptional strategy that elevates the drama to one of big universal themes and giant gestures.<br /><br />This film snatches the high ground because of the brilliant performances by it's actors, notably a young Jean Hugues Anglade and the directing. A tour- De -force of cinema. Outstanding in ambition and it's unceasing plummet into the depths of human emotion. As a contribution to gay cinema, this film conquers this difficult ground and makes it it's own triumph.

OK, ill be brief. This film wasn't just bad it was very very bad, with line4s like " if you deal with the devil you expect to get sh*t on your shoes" you know your in hideous film territory. After watching this film i wanted to kill myself and my entire family, it gave me such a vast feeling of self-loathing I wanted to do murder. don't watch this film. i will kill again. but when I do it will be terribly edited with a pathetic soundtrack and stock shot for hire action sequences and bad shirts.<br /><br />fortunately there is a flipside, its the first action film to feature a three door ford sierra.<br /><br />unfortunately it ends up trashed on its roof :(<br /><br />Ps: Worse than the Marksman

A yawn-inducing, snail-paced disappointment, Inside Man tells the story of a detective (Denzel Washington) who is under investigation due to his possible involvement in a case of missing money. When a bank is robbed and hostages are held against their will by a mastermind thief (Clive Owen) and his team, the detective is assigned to coerce the thief to surrender – his one shot at proving he is innocent and worthy of his position. Enter a powerful woman (Jodie Foster) with secrets and intents of her own, sent to recover an item from the bank owner's safety deposit box that is stored within the bank, and you have quite the three-way dilemma. Unfortunately, all you get it set-up in the film, and nothing pays off in the end. Denzel Washington is at his most uninteresting in an ineffective and distastefully egocentric performance. The only saving grace for the film is its competent co-stars Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, who are much better than the film itself. In fact, Jodie Foster delivers the most surprising and high-caliber performance playing against type as a ruthless, cutthroat villain of sorts. Clive Owen isn't given much to do besides brood and pose, but the depth of his presence and his achieved acting ability more than make up for his underdeveloped role. It's strange that so much talent is wasted on this film of little impact or interest. You have to wonder what director Spike Lee was thinking while he was creating this film. The most perplexing aspect of Inside Man, however, is how much unwarranted praise it has received. For a film that seemed to have all the makings of a pre-summer blockbuster, this one falls horribly flat.

Audiences today will probably watch a film like Ossessione and not really consider how unprecedented it was during the time when it came out. The structure of the film really divorces from sap-happy Hollywood conventions—as well as other major theatrical elements. It relies more upon depicting reality in a very grim and sober light. Films of this nature—the neo-realist films—were made to reflect the darkness felt during post-World War II times. Ossessione tackles some fairly provocative issues that were probably unseen on screen prior to the war, including: adultery, conspiracy, murder, pregnancy, etc. Aside from the one crane shot and certain musical swelling moments, the film aesthetic is very raw and gritty: shot on-location, uses natural lighting and most likely non-popular actors. All of these elements helped convey the issues explored in the film, yielding the following theme: Negative karmic repercussions will haunt those who deliberately act immorally.<br /><br />The two leads—Gino and Giovanna—are polar opposites, yet both carry the mentality: we're bored and we want to be entertained. Gino is a drifter; a lone traveler who embraces life and its constant fluctuations. Giovanna is a bored house-wife cemented in the familiarly of marital permanence: she doesn't want to leave her home and husband, but would rather remain where she is because it's safer. Gino's lifestyle represents the ideal lifestyle Giovanna craves; the only difference is that she's too afraid to live it herself—that's why she falls in love with Gino: he represents everything she wants but doesn't have the courage to get. She wants to live in a world free from the monotony of living with her corpulent husband—Gino is the perfect ticket into that world. The affair that ensues between the two most likely left audiences back in the 40's feeling somewhat uneasy. I mean, films prior to the neo-realist age never showed such scandalous behavior on screen before. To say the least it was probably a bit alarming.<br /><br />In conjunction with the theme, the neo-realist style helps show the negative repercussions of adulterous behavior. Succinctly put, adulterous behavior (as shown in the film) leads to depressing and ultimately deadened lives. When Gino and Giovanna conspire with each other to "eliminate" Giovanna's husband, karma comes to haunt them like a plague after the deed is done. They return to their home: the atmosphere is dark and biting (as can be expected from the neo-realist style). They are not happy; they're actually more depressed. They thought that by eliminating Giovanna's husband that they'd live happier lives, but they were duped. The film ends with Giovanna's death—it being in karmic similitude of her husband's death. I think this is a very satisfying ending for several reasons. Here's why.<br /><br />There's a lot of talk as to whether or not evil should be depicted on screen, and if so, to what extent. I think depicting evil is very necessary if and only if the evil depicted is not being glorified, but rather shows what negative consequences evil actions have. As the subtext of Ossessione asks, is adultery and murder evil? I think the film eagerly responds yes! The adulterous behavior between the two reveals how unhappy they are. Ironically though, towards the end of the film when they seem to be healed of their depression and are seen basking in each other's arms inside the car, the author of the film shows that their happiness is, in fact, a façade: the car crashes off the cliff and into the river, killing Giovanna; the police arrest Gino. I think it was the author's intention to say that even though people sometimes try and justify their immoral behavior, in the end karma will come back to haunt them. I agree. I think the two got what was coming to them because they both were incredibly selfish—always wanting instant gratification and not willing to endure through hard times. This was especially made clear after the first sign of difficulty that Gino and Giovanna experience in their relationship: he can't handle the pressure of living in Giovanna's husband shadow, so he leaves Giovanna and sleeps with another girl. Such is typical of the insatiable, hedonistic personality.<br /><br />All in all, the film seemed very risky for its time. The audience, however, was prepared to see such a film because of the sobriety the war brought. Those pre-war, happy-go-lucky films were no longer being believed. Movie-going audiences were ready to see and contemplate difficult films with complex characters: they wanted to see characters whose lives were entangled in so-called 'sin' because it was a reflection of their own life problems. Ossessione, then, acts as a great catalyst for where the future of film was heading. That is, a lot of the naturalism pieces we see today can be said to have been influenced by the neo-realist film movement.

Freebird is the perfect marriage of road trip comedy, gang caper, "stoner" film and feel-good British movie.<br /><br />It is the brilliant lead characters that set this movie apart from other films in this genre. Stars Phil Daniels, Gary Stretch and Geoff Bell have a great chemistry and make their characters hugely likable and realistic. The main story centres around their road trip from London to Wales, and the adventures and mishaps that occur along the way. This small film also has a great heart - it is not just for bike fans, as it bases around the character's relationships with each other including dreams and regrets, such as Gary Stretch's Fred longing for the family he left behind. The cinematography is also great - a love letter to the Welsh countryside as well as capturing the grittiness of London streets and typical pub life in the Welsh country towns.<br /><br />Stylish, slick, fantastic soundtrack, likable characters and funny storyline - I would recommend Freebird in a heartbeat!

What's to like about this movie???<br /><br />It is in colour! <br /><br />It has some impressive underwater photography! <br /><br />It has a rhythmic musical score in the background that works well at times! <br /><br />So 3 out of 10! <br /><br />Sometimes the music is speeded up! Especially when the shark or the baddies are about to move in! <br /><br />Sometimes it is slowed! As if to convey to the audience it's about to be time for sympathy! <br /><br />As another one bites the dust! As if in a "spagetti Western" this has much similarity to! <br /><br />It's not that the Italians can't produce quality productions! There was a series of TV movies with a heading like "Octopus" numbered about 1 to 7, screened on SBS TV in Australia in the 1990s about mafia-type conflicts! And they were excellent! But alas, you won't find it here!!!<br /><br />I assumed it was made about 1960s! Sadly it was 20 years out of date, as evidenced by a funeral scene near the end! <br /><br />Then there was the razor-sharp bite of the speedy shark that makes for a red dust repeatedly emerging in the bluish waters! <br /><br />Amidst it all, either in bar-room brawl or in observing the latest sea-side bloody demolition by the relentlessly hungry shark, the mate of the hero looks on through his glasses of little concern, as if he too was bored in his relentless role amidst a lack of much evidence of plot or anyone's character development! <br /><br />At least the hero indicates a fleeting concern belatedly, for his ex-wife! <br /><br />But of course, even if the music fails to awaken our realisation, we have the sinister sound in the baddies' voices, as if to nudge us that another dark deed is about to emerge! <br /><br />And near the end, someone thought of a twist! Just when we thought it was all totally predictable! But stay tuned, folks, for you may find another twist! If you are watching closely! To, more or less, warm your heart! <br /><br />Follow the advice of the hero, and have a few beers along the way! It'll make your viewing of "Night of the Sharks" more enjoyable! <br /><br />Then you'll be ready for something like a "007" movie to ease your way back into reality when this is over!!!

Final Score...who cares - it's a reality show. It has no love for it's audience, it panders to lazy TV viewers, puts nothing in and gets nothing out.<br /><br />"Joe Millionaire", the most blatantly phony reality show of them all, is a television disaster of epic proportions. It's a watershed, rock bottom moment, not only for Fox, but for the American viewing public who actually watch, like and talked about this crap the next day. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Because as much as Fox promotes this junk it won't make any money unless it's watch by people (and boy was it, the finale got nearly Super Bowl numbers!?). It doesn't bother you people that there are many quality shows written, directed, acted and generally have effort put into them that are being cancelled while you sit back and lap up this effortless, cold game show?<br /><br />I used to be a staunch supporter of Fox. It's those of us like me who like and seek out quality TV that helped build Fox back in the days of Married...with Children and The Simpsons. Conveniently enough, now neither of those shows would make it 6 weeks with the current management. The Gail Berman "reign of terror" as it's often called. The network has waged war on scripted TV AND, strangely enough, it's fans. The very people who helped build them in the beginning. Now, not only do we have to fight for good shows, but we have to fight against their own network. It boggles the mind. Nothing Fox, has done in the past 3 years makes any sense. From canceling hits like "Titus", "Futurama" and "John Doe" (NBC can renew "Boomtown", but Fox can't lift it's pitiful head to give the only decent show they had this season another shot?). And the reason they can do all this: the success of junk like "Joe Millionaire". They can now say "We don't need you TV fans, we have reality shows". They apparently seem to have no idea that the big audience the draw with this junk is fickle and WILL abandon them the second the next fad comes along. To alienate their base like this will eventually kill the network the way it has set back ABC.<br /><br />The show itself is a joke. Here we have a premise, in the now classic Fox gimmick, that promises us something different and edgy, but then delivers something not in any way different from "The Bachelor" or anything on the big 3. Fox has gone mainstream. The finale and "twist" (quote/unquote) showed they have no ideas up their sleeve. Now we know that all these shows, no matter how different they look, will all end up the same cornball, fairy tale ending. We got to see a bunch of lame aspiring actors that the network picked out of millions of head-shots to fit their demographics parade around like high school bimbos pretending they liked this Evan Marriott because...well because it was a competition and that's what you're supposed to do. Marriott himself is like a hideously disfigured Chro-magnum man who struggles to put together the simplest sentences. But, how can the women (all average to ugly looking by the way - an important minus is a guilty pleasure show like this) not fall for "Joe" with such charming lines like "Look, you're not stupid".<br /><br />I used to think that people who watched these reality/dating/game shows were just to lazy to change the channel, but after "Joe Millionaire" I think they must be genuinely mentally deficient. Come on people, have a little more pride in yourselves. Demand a little bit more from your entertainment then THIS.<br /><br />Boycott FOX.

4 out of 10.<br /><br />This film was neither funny as a whole nor was it even worthing investing any kind of emotion into the characters. Eugene Levy is probably the most funny.... The rest of the cast do their jobs, but the story never really gets very deep and there are a lot of holes in the plot that never get filled. This just wasn't very much fun, despite being funny at times.<br /><br />

If there was anything Akira Kurosawa did wrong in making Dodes'ka-den, it was making it with the partnership he formed with the "four knights" (the other three being Kobayaski, Ichikawa, and Konishita). They wanted a big blockbuster hit to kick off their partnership, and instead Kurosawa, arguably the head cheese of the group, delivered an abstract, humanist art film with characters living in a decimated slum that had many of its characters face dark tragedies. Had he made it on a more independent basis or went to another studio who knows, but it was because of this, among some other financial and creative woes, that also contributed to his suicide attempt in 1971. And yet, at the end of the day, as an artist Kurosawa didn't stop delivering what he's infamous for with his dramas: the strengths of the human spirit in the face of adversity. That its backdrop is a little more unusual than most shouldn't be ignored, but it's not at all a fault of Kurosawa's.<br /><br />The material in Dodes'ka-den is absorbing, but not in ways that one usually finds from the director, and mostly because it is driven by character instead of plot. There's things that happen to these people, and Kurosawa's challenge here is to interweave them into a cohesive whole. The character who starts off in the picture, oddly enough (though thankfully as there's not much room for him to grow), is Rokkuchan, a brain damaged man-child who goes around all day making train sounds (the 'clickety-clack' of the title), only sometimes stopping to pray for his mother. But then we branch off: there's the father and son, the latter who scrounges restaurants for food and the former who goes on and on with site-specific descriptions of his dream house; an older man has the look of death to him, and we learn later on he's lost a lot more than he'll tell most people, including a woman who has a past with him; a shy, quiet woman who works in servitude to her adoptive father (or uncle, I'm not sure), who rapes her; and a meek guy in a suit who has a constant facial tick and a big mean wife- to those who are social around.<br /><br />There are also little markers of people around these characters, like two drunks who keep stumbling around every night, like clockwork, putting big demands on their spouses, sometimes (unintentionally) swapping them! And there's the kind sake salesman on the bike who has a sweet but strange connection with the shy quiet woman. And of course there's a group of gossiping ladies who squat around a watering hole in the middle of the slum, not having anything too nice to say about anyone unless it's about something erotic with a guy. First to note with all of this is how Kurosawa sets the picture; it's a little post-apocalyptic, looking not of any particular time or place (that is until in a couple of shots we see modern cars and streets). It's a marginalized society, but the concerns of these people are, however in tragic scope, meant to be deconstructed through dramatic force. Like Bergman, Kurosawa is out to dissect the shattered emotions of people, with one scene in particular when the deathly-looking man who has hollow, sorrowful eyes, sits ripping cloth in silence as a woman goes along with it.<br /><br />Sometimes there's charm, and even some laughs, to be had with these people. I even enjoyed, maybe ironically, the little moments with Rokkuchan (specifically with Kurosawa's cameo as a painter in the street), or the awkward silences with the man with the facial tics. But while Kurosawa allows his actors some room to improvise, his camera movements still remain as they've always been- patient but alert, with wide compositions and claustrophobic shots, painterly visions and faces sometimes with the stylization of a silent drama meant as a weeper. Amid these sometimes bizarre and touching stories, with some of them (i.e. the father and son in the car) especially sad, Kurosawa lights his film and designs the color scheme as his first one in Eastmancolor like it's one of his paintings. Lush, sprawling, spilling at times over the seams but always with some control, this place is not necessarily "lighter"; it's like the abstract has come full-throttle into the scene, where things look vibrant but are much darker underneath. It's a brilliant, tricky double-edged sword that allows for the dream-like intonations with such heavy duty drama.<br /><br />With a sweet 'movie' score Toru Takemitsu (also responsible for Ran), and some excellent performances from the actors, and a few indelible scenes in a whole fantastic career, Dodes'ka-den is in its own way a minor work from the director, but nonetheless near perfect on its own terms, which as with many Kurosawa dramas like Ikiru and Red Beard holds hard truths on the human condition without too much sentimentality.

Remarkably well done, but under-recognized because of limited distribution. Has big-studio feel, understands the horror genre, speeds along with clever plot twists and never stumbles. Could have been a college cult classic, if it had ever gotten the opportunity.

Henry Thomas was "great". His character held my attention. I was so "into" the story that I forgot it wasn't real. I wanted him to keep the baby and see what a special person he was. The other people in the story were essential in the makeup of his character. The way they banded together to help one another was truly awe inspiring. I love movies that show the real side of human emotions without having to hit you over the head, in that you are not smart enough to figure things out for yourself.

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

I was amazingly impressed by this movie. It contained fundamental elements of depression, grief, loneliness, despair, hope, dreams and companionship. It wasn't merely about a genius musician who hit rock bottom but it was about a man caught up in grief trying drastically to find solace within his music. He finds a companion who comes with her own issues. Claire and Des were able to provide each other with friendship and love but more importantly a conclusion to events which had shaped their life for the worst. <br /><br />Des is an unlikely character by todays standards of a rock star. Yet he has musical genius. He also has an event in his past that has made him stagnate, while things around him literally go to ruins. His focus is creating his Whale Music, in fact it becomes an obsession for him.<br /><br />Claire is the streetwise kid that needs a place to stay. She finds hidden talents while being in Des company. She also finds a mutual friend that accepts her. She learns to trust him over a period of time.<br /><br />These two find love with one another. Not the mind blowing, sex infused kind of passion, but a love where friendship and understanding means more. For two people who have been hurt, they find trust together.

This is the weepy that Beaches never was. As much as I wanted to love Beaches, it always seemed too hurried for me to "feel" for it (its soundtrack is one of my favorite albums though). Stella, on the other hand, moves at a slower (and occasionally too slow) pace and though it's somewhat manipulative in its tears-inducing tale about a self-sacrificial mother, it works because Bette and the rest of the cast turn in great performances. 10/10

Flesh Feast starts at Miami Airport, ace reporter Dan Carter (Harry Kerwin, he is also credited as production designer) phones his mate Ed Casey (Phil Philbin) to let him know that he has just returned from South America where he has been investigating Carl Schuman (Doug Foster) & that he was onto a big story but while still talking on the phone he is stabbed in the back & killed. Schuman meets Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake, she also executive produced) who has recently been released from a mental institution, together they discuss their grisly plans. The news of Cater's death has reached Casey & he decides to take the story up himself & do some investigating, well actually he gets his secretary Viginia Day (Marth Mischon) to do most of the investigating & just report back to him, lazy bugger. Virginia informs Casey that they have someone on the inside named Kristine (Heather Hughes) since Dr. Frederick rents her spare rooms out to nurses, Kristine reports back to Casey about Schuman & Dr. Frederick's grotesque youth restoration experiments involving human flesh & specially cultivated maggots...<br /><br />Co written, co-produced & directed by Brad F. Grinter Flesh Feast is a pretty poor film on all accounts. First lets start with the script by Grinter & Thomas Casey who was also responsible for the cinematography (you get the feeling that most of the cast & crew had more than one job), basically it's terrible. The character's are one dimensional idiots & have no personality, I didn't like anyone in this film. For what it's worth I quite like some of the ideas here, the flesh-eating maggots, the basement laboratory, stealing bodies from a hospital & that unforgettable 'twist' ending that's almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for on it's own. Unfortunately the dialogue is so badly written, stiff & unnatural sounding it's untrue, I mean there is one scene in which a nurse says that they "won't let us out of the house" which is fine except for the fact that she is speaking OUTSIDE in the garden to someone. No thought has been put into the story as no explanation is ever given for why flesh-eating maggots are able to restore youth, in fact at one point near the end when questioned about this very thing Dr. Frederick claims there is no time to explain at that point which to me sounds like the people who wrote this didn't have a clue either! Even at an extremely short 68 minutes long Flesh Feast is very slow & dull, the poor editing doesn't help with scenes & shots lasting for far too long, for example there is a scene in which an Ambulance pulls up outside a Hospital, drives up to the doors, the guy gets out, he walks to the back doors & opens them etc. etc. did we really need to see every single detail? There is also another sequence in which Dr. Frederick enters room & puts some gloves on, then she takes them off walks into the opposite room & puts another pair on! I personally think that Grinter probably didn't shoot enough material so he stretches every scene out as much as he can to make the run time up. I do like that bizarre ending though, I really do. Technically Flesh feast is complete crap, I'm not sure what the budget was on this but it must have been small, very small. Just about the entire film takes place in one house, Dr. Frederick's laboratory consists of a table, some plastic beakers & test tubes, some ancient looking electronic medical equipment & a strange screen with funny colours on it (don't ask). The cinematography is poor, the music sucks & the entire film looks dubbed, badly dubbed too. The exploitation elements are also disappointing, there are a few maggot shots but they don't actually do anything other than wriggle a bit, there is a brief scene where a dead body has it's leg sawn off & a OK looking dismembered corpse & limbs hanging on hooks. The acting is awful from everyone concerned, & I mean really bad which makes the rubbishy dialogue even worse. Do yourself a favour & avoid Flesh Feast, yes there are one or two unintentionally funny moments & that ending is, well unique to say the least but for the most part this is real amateur film-making that quickly becomes painful to watch. I doubt most people will make it through this is one sitting, I can tolerate just about anything but even I considered switching it off. Definitely one to avoid, you'll be pleased you did & if you really have to see it don't say you weren't warned!

There is great detail in A Bug's Life. Everything is covered. The film looks great and the animation is sometimes jaw-dropping. The film isn't too terribly orignal, it's basically a modern take on Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, only with bugs. I enjoyed the character interaction however and the bad guys in this film actually seemed bad. It seems that Disney usually makes their bad guys carbon copy cut-outs. The grasshoppers are menacing and Hopper, the lead bad guy, was a brillant creation. Check this one out.

I put this second version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" to my Top 10 Hitchcock movies. Together with "Frenzy", it's probably the most argued film among the fans of Hitchcock. I consider it far better than, say, "Rebecca", which has gained unreasonably much appreciation.<br /><br />The film contains many ingenious scenes (most of them have been mentioned in other reviews), but that's something to be expected from Hitchcock. It takes almost half an hour until things really start to happen, but that time is used for preparing the following happenings, which are full of intriguing suspense.<br /><br />If you can ignore the clumsy rear projections, the only weakness of this film is the main villain, played by Bernard Miles, who is a rather flat and undeveloped character. Luckily, there is a creepy assassin in the form of Reggie Nalder. And Hank, the little boy, isn't as irritating as most kids in old movies.

This is a brilliant series along the same lines of Simpsons. Following a family as they go through life and problems etc. Slightly less realistic than Simpsons, talking baby and dog anyone? Family Guy goes where SImpsons or Futurama dares not, reaching past into the sicker jokes and more racy gags. And believe me, it works! Almost all the gags hit the mark and they'll have you in stitches(especially the random, frequent flashbacks!) When my brother first showed me this I wasn't hooked but after a few episodes I was hooked. You will be 2. 10/10 for a truly brilliant show. COngrats to Seth Macfarlane for bringing this show to life. :)

When I first watched this movie I thought it was a very strange movie. But I know that the director almost always has a purpose when he makes a movie. So I decided to watch it one more time. The second time I watched it I realised that Albert Puyn is a very talented and a very original film maker. In the beginning the viewer was told that the movie took place a decade after the fall of the communism in the eastern Europe. But they had clothes and cars with a design typical for the 1950's. They had plutonium which I think is a symbol for the futuristic trade. I think that it means that the movie's real time is not specified. The music in the movie is creating a long music video which tells some parts of the actual story in the lyrics, specially for the intro and the outro.<br /><br />Albert Puyn is using red and blue back-color when he's showing the symbols for communism (red) and the capitalism and western world (blue). One can notice that Ice-T, has the name Mao (communism) and that when he's in focus the back-color is red. The american cop, starring Burt Reynolds, is always filmed with blue back-color. The club where Mao and his gang hang out is also with red back-color. Crazy six is pendling between the red and the blue color.<br /><br />The white little dog that Mao had in the beginning symbolize, I think, the controlling force. Mao had the dog in the beginning but the cop took it in the end. That symbolize, I guess, the fall of communism and the replacement of the capitalistic way of thinking from the western world in Eastern Europe.<br /><br />I think Crazy Six is a very well-made movie. Albert Puyn creates an sci-fi/action movie with a politicial depth. It's a different but a very special movie about the communism fall in the Eastern Europe.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to watch another spectacular movie of Albert Puyn.

Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.

This is a very memorable spaghetti western. It has a great storyline, interesting characters, and some very good acting, especially from Rosalba Neri. Her role as the evil villainess in this film is truly classic. She steals every scene she is in, and expresses so much with her face and eyes, even when she's not speaking. Her performance is very believable. She manages to be quite mesmerizing without being over the top (not that there's anything wrong with being over the top). Mark Damon is surprisingly good in this movie too.<br /><br />The music score is excellent, and the theme song is the kind that will be playing in your head constantly for days after seeing the movie, whether you want it to or not. There are a couple of parts that are very amusing. I especially like the part where Rosalba Neri undresses in front of the parrot. There's also lots of slick gun-play that's very well done.<br /><br />I would probably have given this movie 8 or 9 stars if it wasn't for two things. The first being a silly bar room brawl that occurs about 25 minutes into the film. This is one of the most ridiculous looking fights I have ever seen in a movie. It is very poorly choreographed, and looks more like a dance number from a bad musical than any kind of a real fight. One might be able to overlook this if it were a Terence Hill/Bud Spencer comedy, but this is a more serious western, and the brawl really needed to be more realistic. The other thing that annoyed me about this movie was Yuma's cowardly Mexican sidekick. I guess he was supposed to be comic relief or something, but the character was just plain stupid and unnecessary in a movie like this, and he wasn't at all funny. All I can say is where is Tuco when you need him? <br /><br />All that having been said, let me assure everyone reading this that Johnny Yuma is a classic spaghetti western despite the faults I have mentioned, and all fans of the genre need to see this movie.

I think Josh Duhamel is so great!! The rest of the show is fun to watch, but, I think it is the handsome and sexy Josh Duhamel that makes the show "Las Vegas" really fun to see!! In the days of "Magnum" I loved Tom Selleck, I thought he was the sexiest man on the face of the earth!! A hunk on a television show is a must in order for women to enjoy watching something, especially just for purposes of innocuous entertainment!! I would have done anything to "Win A Date With Tad Hamilton"!! Josh Duhamel is incredible and I will always have a super crush on him!! Josh is definitely a HUNK!! and I will watch "Las Vegas" all the time, Josh Duhamel is a big reason why too!!

I loved this film because in my mind it seemed to so perfectly capture what I imagined life in French colonial Africa must have been like in the 50's ("my" generation anyway). But I was truly enraptured by its quiet pacing and by the glorious ending. Within the last 5 minutes of this film, you must focus intently on what's happening. Never have I been more impressed with the "wrap-up" of a film. I remember yelling "wow!" when I realized it was over. On the other hand, my two daughters fell asleep on the couch!!

You're waiting to see if the remake is better or worse. I rated the Audie Murphy movie a 3 (I'm a harsh grader), the second lowest I ever gave Audie (the worst being "Battle at Bloody Beach" if you're curious). I give this movie a rating of "8" (and I'm a harsh grader) It's the Civil War story of renegade "soldiers", if you want to call them that, against the North. People like Quantrell, and the men who rode with these outlaws.<br /><br />The original was a watery version, very clean cut, while still depicting the horror of what these men did. Actually, movies such as the older version are best viewed by mature audiences, who can discern the story. I would be more apt to rate the original "R" and this one, with it's gruff nature, a GP, because the newer movie gives a very honest version, a message more easily deciphered by a juvenile than the older version.<br /><br />Film makers since the early sixties have boasted about "Realism", but few of them deliver. Instead, they just give the drab scenery, drab costumes, and drab events, but with comic book cardboard stereotype characters, the weakness of the spaghetti era.<br /><br />Modern film makers have realized this mistake. It is evident in a superior style of Western we usually see today. This movie is an example. It gives the realistic settings, but also gives us characters we can believe exist in that era.<br /><br />It has a few lulls, which makes a complete sit through a bit hard, and it has some unexplained situations. But unexplained situations are okay as long the entire movie holds up, and the characters are intriguing enough.<br /><br />It begins a bit campy, but really improves. The main character is one we can identify, and at least have some sympathy for. The Audie Murphy character of the early movie really evokes no sympathy, and is too self righteous without motivation.<br /><br />The character in this movie follows the lines of a true anti-hero. There is motivation, and a method to his madness. We never feel he is truly "right", but we can understand where he comes from.<br /><br />There is plenty of action in the movie. There is also some humor. One good scene is when the heroine tells the hero she wouldn't lie to him, and he mulls that over.<br /><br />This movie succeeds in doing what film makers have been trying to do for decades. This director and writer team got it right.<br /><br />Recommended. Complete success.

OK, so i have recently been collecting a lot of vipco and hardgore titles on DVD and i have to say that this one is one of the most disappointing ones. A more recent film compared to other titles in the Hardgore catalogue this was a straight to DVD release. i've always been interested in the myth of el chokeberry ever since i saw a documentary on it as a teenager. however this film is a terrible let down shot on tacky dv the storyline and acting are terrible, it took me three goes to watch this film all the way through. While cheap 80's and 90's horror films are good because of their cheap budgets and comedy this film is not.<br /><br />check out some other titles in the hardgore series first, boneyard for example is older but much much better.

This movie sounded like it might be entertaining and interesting from its description. But to me it was a bit of a let down. Very slow and hard to follow and see what was happening. It was as if the filmmaker took individual pieces of film and threw them in the air and had them spliced together whichever way they landed (definitely not in sequential order). Also, nothing of any consequence was being filmed. I have viewed quite a few different Korean films and have noticed that a good portion are well made and require some thinking on the viewer's part, which is different from the typical Hollywood film. But this one befuddled me to no end. I viewed the film a second and third time and it still didn't do anything for me. I still don't really understand what the filmmaker was trying to convey. If it was to just show a typical mundane portion of a person's life, I guess he succeeded. But I was looking for more. Needless to say, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.

Inane, awful farce basically about a young man who refuses to conform or better uses non-conformity to attain his objectives-fool his parents into thinking that he is attending a college. Truth is that this jerk has been rejected by every school he has applied to. After viewing this junk, you will see why.<br /><br />What a ridiculous name- South Hampton Institute of Technology. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the initials of this school of nonsense. Problem with these type of films is that in the end, the non-conformist becomes the accepted mode.<br /><br />Let's step back to the world of reality and call this film what it really is- excessive manipulative junk!

I just saw this wonderfully filmed movie that captures the essence of<br /><br />high-brow NYC, or any big city of mid-century America. The colors, the<br /><br />cars, the clothes and the coming of the Womens Movement. It reflects the<br /><br />comf-cozy attitudes of relationships between men and women in the<br /><br />corporate world. In some ways, things gave changed and in others, they<br /><br />haven't changed at all. Women still want what men have today, but they<br /><br />now have all sorts of laws and equality mandates to get it for them. In<br /><br />my opinion, beautiful women will still THROW themselves at men in<br /><br />pursuit of thier goals! The laws we have now against harrassment and<br /><br />all, were passed by unattractive women who wanted an equal chance to<br /><br />compete with prettier women who might be getting the positions soley<br /><br />based on thier looks and puting out! The real competition isn't between<br /><br />men and women, but women and women! I liked the look and feel of the movie but the world hasn't changed as<br /><br />far as what real

Japanese animators have a unique freedom with animation, which is why they tend to be able to come out with movies like these, movies that ultimately end up on anime-fans hard-drives and college student's floors, but get completely ignored by pretty much anybody outside of its country of origin. Cat Soup is one of those films that, from Western eyes, is supposed to be experienced on drugs or deeply analyzed. Really, it's just a beautifully detailed surrealist journey.<br /><br />There's no real dialog, which makes it easy to pass on to other interested parties uninterested in things like subtitles. A cat and his half-dead (brain-dead?) sister travel through various landscapes of imagination and association. There's a general theme of water, or lack thereof (possibly because of the cat drowning at the beginning? Possibly because of the title?). There's an interesting sort of Genesis take. There's a pig that gets to eat itself. An elephant made of water. And it's gorgeous, compelling, exciting, and fun--provided you don't watch it around druggies who cannot experience anything visually unique without comparing it to an acid trip. Eventually the movie turns itself off, adding another compelling self-reflexive level to the proceedings.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.

This is one of the two postapocalyptic fantasy movies that Albert Pyun made in 1993 - and it's the bad one. Apparently all his energy went into "Nemesis" which was an entertaining non-stop action movie, and had a much more expensive look. "Knights" is clunky and cheesy, a bottom-of-the-barrel sci-fi that too often resembles a video game (new opponents pop up all the time and must be exterminated as quickly as possible). The only thing that saves this movie from the trash can is Kathy Long; not a particularly attractive woman, but undeniably a brutally efficient fighting machine. As for Kris Kristofferson, considering his age at the time (58), I hope his stunt double was well paid. (*1/2)

The word honor should be erased from the vocabularies of all nations. It aggravates male dumbness and is responsible for the death of millions of innocent people. Anybody who does not agree should not care to continue reading this comment.<br /><br />As can be expected with these screenwriters, Yakuza is an engaging crime thriller with quite a lot of respect for the ethnical background against which it is acted out. Friends of gore and violence will not be disappointed either, but especially towards the end violence becomes somewhat pointless, redundant and downright silly. Contrary to other reviewers I found Robert Mitchum's performance not very good. This is an actor who definitely did not improve with age. He looks like a tired janitor (it does not go too well with the part), and his air of detachment which made him such an impressive screen presence in earlier years comes through as either confusion or lack of interest. Ken Takakura and Richard Jordan are very good as man of honor and young, intelligent, feeling thug respectively.<br /><br />The best way to stand this movie is seeing it as a tragic comedy. Things are set in motion by the Mitchum character's asking the Takakura character a favor based on wrong assumptions. The error quickly becomes evident, but the sense of honor demands they must not back off. So they start sneaking around, shooting in all directions, wielding swords and wrecking their friend's arty apartment (although the guy pleads with them „stop it, please" all through the corresponding fight). Bodies start piling up and the story ends with Mitchum's character making his point: If YOU give HIM YOUR little finger, I will give YOU MINE. Well, it's the least he can do, can't he? So he pulls out a knife, takes a resigned breath and starts sawing off said extremity (outside the frame, luckily). It was a moment which probably should have been solemn. It just made me laugh.<br /><br />The use of locations is very good in this movie. I particularly liked the scenes filmed in and around the International Conference Hall on Lake Takaragaike, an interesting futuristic building by architect Sachio Otani (the Kyoto protocol was signed there). To me the presentation of architecture seems better here than in Sydney Pollack's more recent documentary Sketches of Frank O. Gehry which is about architecture and nothing else.

Persuaded by the 7.0 points in IMDb, which is pretty good, i decided to watch this movie. However, i found this movie quiet boring (about 2 hours) and full of clichés, A little girl getting multiple personalities after a childhood trauma etc. Tamer KAradagli is quiet funny in this movie, dialogs motions etc, you will have to see it, he is kinda the tough cop you see on American movies, perhaps copied too much. I would describe this movie as ordinary American thriller with a little bit of Turkish touch, Unfortunately yet again I'm convinced that comedies and dramas are the only genres worth watching in Turkish cinema Anyways i gave this movie a 4, its too boring and full of clichés

666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...<br /><br />This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.<br /><br />Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.<br /><br />Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.<br /><br />666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.

If your looking for a movie with fantastic music, nice cast and a storyline that is not to difficult to understand; FAME is for you.<br /><br />I have several scenes that i love in this movie; some make you laugh, others make you contemplative. The editing i think is wonderful, really fast and often funny. Shure, maybe there would have been some more potential in the whole thing, all the story's stay somehow on the surface; maybe a bit too many characters are involved.But I don't care, because the real stars are...<br /><br />...the musical scenes! One of my favorites: the hot-lunch-jam sequence. That piece is just so raw, funky and filmed in a special way (handcamera-style in "music-hell-breaking-loose"), its just electrifying! I miss this raw energy in todays music-clips; the only similar energy I found perhaps in Bette Midlers "the rose", all of the concert footage.Its about capturing something "wild" that is "realy" happening, and not doing it just perfect; take by take.<br /><br />So, FAME is a wonderful nostalgia-trip to when synthesizers where heavy and walk-mans not available.I recommend it once a year; sure not for everyone.

To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see "Troy" If you liked epics in the "Jupiter's Darling" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business.

After Chicago, I was beginning to lose all respect for Richard Gere and then along came The Flock. There's just so far a nice smile and a couple of stock facial gestures can get you, but he proved to me that he's finally gotten hold of his craft and can act with the best of them. Clare Danes was also super as his "trainee/replacement". Some have suggested there was too much unnecessary violence, but I don't see it that way. Nothing I saw detracted from the power of this film. I was really shocked I hadn't heard of it being released in theaters and came across it at Blockbuster instead. Really an exceptional film with just the right blend of action, suspense, thrills, and social consciousness. As good as 7even? Well, maybe. And you'll see better acting out of Gere than anyone's ever gotten out of Pitt.

My website (www.theflickguy.org) lists this pick as the worst movie of all time. Here is an excerpt: <br /><br />"If I were strapped down to a chair and forced to watch this movie over and over again, I couldn't imagine Hell being any worse. Jim Varney plays a three-handed crazy guy bent on destroying the world (apparently starting with cinema). Now let's face it, no one expects a whole lot from a Varney movie, but this agonizing drivel had me dry-heaving for 92 minutes. Not a laugh. Not one. This is not kamp or gitchy, this is not even mindless. It is evil. Do not rent this, it may destroy your DVD player. Do not even buy the VHS from a 29-cent clearance bin to use as a blank tape. It is the worst film of all time. Period. I mean it. Really."

Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a mentally unstable young woman with a troubled past who gets more than she bargained for when she goes to a pool party with a handsome coworker. When her date and his friends jokingly say they belong to a `Murder Club,' Maddy takes it seriously and moves straight up to `Level 3' by bashing in the brains of a woman in a parking garage (for denting her car!). But is Maddy also the one donning a plastic mask and killing off other members of the group or has someone else lost it?<br /><br />The plot of this film (originally titled MAKE 'EM BLEED) is very poorly conceived, full of holes and spirals completely out of control before a ludicrous, out-of-left-field twist ending. Some of the dialogue is downright laughable. I didn't have a problem with Rochon's performance, but the supporting cast was atrocious. However, I managed to sit through this Full Moon release thoroughly entertained. There's plenty of skin and blood and it's the perfect type of flick to sit around with a group of your buddies and pick apart. Horror fans may also enjoy the cameos from Brinke Stevens and Lloyd Kaufman (as Debbie's parents) and Julie Strain (an early victim).<br /><br />Score: 4 out of 10

You sit there for a half an hour and watch a story, believing it all, then watch another half an hour of the same story utterly unraveling... and then put back together again. Brilliant.<br /><br />One of the most exciting feature films at the San Francisco International Film Festival is a documentary. I don't know if - other than Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans" - there has ever been anything like Anna Broinowski's "Forbidden Lie$." It features, exposes, defends, reveals, and questions everything about Norma Khouri, author of "Honor Lost," the acclaimed and lambasted 2001 bestseller about honor killings in Jordan.<br /><br />What is quite incredible and what makes the film so exceptional is that this "exposure" of Khouri is made with Khouri's full participation.<br /><br />For the initial portion of the film, Khouri presents her story about the supposed honor killing of a friend of hers in Amman, the story of the book. She sounds completely believable, convincing.<br /><br />Then her story is taken apart, exposed, by eminently believable and convincing people, such as women's rights activists in Jordan, investigative reporters there and in Australia, where Khouri lived for a while.<br /><br />Khouri comes back and denies the accusations, taking a successful lie-detector test in the process. There comes another segment of devastating exposures - not to be specified here because that would lessen the shock value... and then Khouri comes back and faces the accusations (not all, but the essential ones in the matter of the book).<br /><br />And the Houdini act continues, with round after round in this heavy-weight, seesaw prize fight, surprise after surprise - and there is no "happy ending" in the sense of resolution. Brilliant.

one of the worst films I have EVER seen, but extremely funny (not on purpose though). Every scene that contains anything to do with; aircraft, romance, script or acting is badly messed up.<br /><br />I recommend this film for all pilots, it´s so bad that you should burst into laughter at some point in the film (also see Airport 79:the Concorde, for the same reason).<br /><br />Anyone else, avoid this film like the plague (except for fans of B-movies, of course)<br /><br />enjoy

May (Anne Reid) and Toots (Peter Vaughan) are paying an apparently infrequent visit to their son Bobby (Steven Mackintosh) and his family in London. Even as the visit begins, Toots suffers a fatal heart attack, leaving May adrift, unsure, and questioning her life and future. Finding herself attracted to her daughter's boyfriend Darren (Daniel Craig), her actions lead to inevitable consequences.<br /><br />Beautifully filmed, but for all its heralded realism and acclaim, The Mother offers a collection of mostly unpleasant, even repellent characters, and asks the viewer to engage with them. Reid shines as May, and it is her skill and commitment as a wonderfully understated actor that salvages the film from a completely depressing mire, but Michell and Kureishi have allowed Craig, Mackintosh and Cathryn Bradshaw to create such utterly obnoxious characters, that it becomes increasingly difficult to care what happens to May. As written, the characters played by Mackintosh and Bradshaw are in fact so utterly selfish and cold-hearted that one begins to wonder what exactly was Kureishi trying to say. As directed, they are either unwilling or unable to lift Bobby and Paula above the two dimensional in their ghastly selfishness. <br /><br />Worth seeing for Reid's performance, but little else. A crying shame...

Well, the movie isn't exactly "funny."<br /><br />Okay, I admit, there are a few HUMOROUS lines, but definitely nothing that is laugh-out-loud funny. For example: Right before a steamy sex scene between Eleniak and one of her male costars, sh is handcuffed to the bedpost and he cannot remove her shirt. Before leaving the room to retrieve the key, he tells her, "Okay, don't go anywhere."<br /><br />See, humorous, but not funny.<br /><br />The plot and acting are pretty good.<br /><br />But Erika Eleniak definitely steals the show. She's hot and sexy and there is a really steamy scene with her that one can't help but rewind and re-watch.<br /><br />There are also some other very sexy scenes with her and she has some very provocative lines.<br /><br />Overall, 5 stars. I'd only give it three if not for Erika Eleniak.

Reese Witherspoon first outing on the big screen was a memorable one. She appears like a fresh scrubbed face "tween" slight and stringy, but undeniably Reese.<br /><br />I have always liked her as an actor, and had no idea she started this young with her career, go figure. I actually gained some respect for Reese to know who she was so early on. I say that because whenever I have watched her perform, the characters thus far, in each portrayal she also seemed to have her own persona that lived with that character, quite nicely in fact.<br /><br />Anyway, my first film experience with Reese was the Little Red Riding Hood parody Reese did with Kiefer Sutherland, somehow I assumed that was her first time up "at bat" Not so, well done Reese

I think the manuscript of this movie was written on the piece of toilet-paper. No respect whatsoever to many important details which intrinsically make the movie. For example, the names of some Serbian terrorists (that I remember) are Caradan Maldic, Ivanic Loyvek and Leo Hasse. What kind of names are that? Certainly not Serbian! By the way, Caradan Maldic!!! What a name, I laughed for days thinking about it. Probably an implication on Karadzic and Mladic. Secondly, there have never been any cases of terrorism done by Serbians. A journalist like the main character ought to have known that. Thirdly, the actors playing Serbian terrorists are not even Serbs nor do they speak Serbo-croatian. All this aside, this movie is solidly acted but the story is paper-thin and full of holes. At times it makes no sense whatsoever!!!

When I watched L'Appartement with my girlfriend, she sighed: "How complicated!" And she is right, of course. When you are used to simple, one-linear plots, especially violent hero vs crook schemes, L'Appartement is hard to follow. A couple of the negative reviewers here also have missed one or more important points. Other whine about the confusing flash backs. Come on! This is not the kind of movie from which you can leave to visit the toilet, come back and get hooked again within a few seconds. This one demands full concentration and a keen eye on details. Then it is really not that hard to figure out what's happening and when. The director has left more than enough clues in all scenes.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie centers about the question: why did Max and Lisa split? The film, as my girlfriend remarked, begins as a romantic lovestory, suggesting that two lost lovers will find each other again. Having experience with French movies, I predicted that the story pretty soon would get a sick twist and I was right. In the end of the first part it becomes clear, after many twists and turns, that Max and Lisa were manipulated by Alice. Max did not know, that Lisa had left and why. Lisa did not know, why Max did not contact her in Rome and left her without a trace, when she returned to Paris. The only one who did was Alice and she had her own reasons to keep her mouth shut.<br /><br />After both Max and Lisa have found out the truth, the question of course becomes: can Alice's manipulations be undone? Well, of course not, time has passed by and things have changed.<br /><br />Many European movies use a story telling technique I fully enjoy. There is no exposition of the basic conflict in the beginning, after which two (or more) interested parties try to decide in their own advantage. Instead the spectator is gradually fed with bits and pieces of the plot and hardly knows more than the main characters. L'Appartement is a fine and subtle example of this technique. In the first half Alice seems to be a side character; slowly it becomes clear, that she is key figure.<br /><br />Acting is simply great. Vincent Cassel is perfect as the somewhat naive and impulsive character, who risks a secured life just to hunt a dream from the past. Monica Belucci is very beautiful of course, but also competent. Jean Paul Ecoffey provides the necessary comical touch. Romane Bohringer is very convincing as the neurotic woman, plagued by feelings of guilt and regret.<br /><br />The only reason I did not gave it a 10 is the somewhat unsatisfying end. Of course it was necessary because of the desired symmetry. After all the events Max is exactly on the point where the movie begun, only wiser and sadder. Alice has paid for her sins. But still the little twists on the airport are a bit artificial. Max too easily exchanges Lisa for Alice; Alice too easily decides to reject Max, who has been her dream for so long; Max too easily returns to his fiancée. But then again, I don't know how how this could be achieved without sacrificing the elegant symmetry. I guess sometimes artists have to give up realism for beauty.

This is breezy highly entertaining drama with an excellent cast. Garfield is fine as a boxer hiding from the police with that motley crew the Dead End Kids. Most notable of these is the beautiful Billy Halop who has some very moving moments. Gloria Dickson, who in real life died very young in a house fire, is strong and very attractive as Halop's sister, and in the early scenes Ann Sheridan, on the brink of stardom, is a knock-out. May Robson is very funny as a crusty old granny, but Claude Rains proves here that even a great actor can flounder if mis-cast (whoever thought of casting him as a tough New York cop?).<br /><br />Busby Berkeley proves here that he was a fine director with or without musical numbers. The film moves at a terrific pace and the water tower sequence is very suspenseful and well photographed. The ending is contrived, and the plot nothing startling or original, but I still found this a highly enjoyable experience.

Many have stated that Orca – Killer Whale is a Jaws rip-off. This is not really true, though the enormous commercial success of Jaws undoubtedly made these man .vs. beast stories more attractive propositions for film-makers in the second half of the '70s. Orca – Killer Whale would be better described as a modern-day retread of Moby Dick. It's a story about obsession. On one hand a whale's obsessive quest to avenge the death of its mate; on the other a bounty hunter's obsessive quest to kill the whale before it can claim any more lives. Sadly, Orca- Killer Whale emerges a very disappointing film, its fundamentally interesting ideas somewhat ruined by hammy performances and preposterous plotting.<br /><br />Shark hunter Nolan (Richard Harris) encounters a marine-life researcher Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling) diving off the Atlantic coast of Canada. Their meeting almost ends in disaster when Rachel's team are attacked by a Great White Shark, but a Killer Whale arrives in the nick of time to stop the shark. After this, Nolan becomes increasingly obsessed with capturing a Killer Whale and selling it to an aquarium. But his plans backfire when he accidentally kills a pregnant female of the species while the distraught male looks on. Rachel tells Nolan that a Killer Whale is an incredibly intelligent mammal with a strong memory and feelings just like a human. Worse still, native Umilak (Will Sampson) warns him that the whale will always remember its grief and do everything it can to have revenge. Nolan initially tries to forget about the whole regrettable incident, but the whale causes havoc in the fishing town and the disgruntled locals begin to demand that Nolan puts to sea to track it down and destroy it. Eventually Nolan is forced to pursue the Killer Whale… the hunt leads all the way to the desolate ice floes of the Arctic Ocean, where man and beast play out their final fatal battle against each other.<br /><br />Two things stand out in this film. One is the haunting score by Ennio Morricone (perhaps the greatest composer of film music of all-time, his talents wasted on various tenth-rate clunkers during the 70s and 80s). The other is the amazing widescreen photography of Ted Moore, which makes the film consistently pleasing to the eye. In every other department, Orca – Killer Whale is a shoddy film that does nothing to enhance the reputation of its talented cast and crew. Harris appears extremely ill throughout the film, his hair bedraggled, black rings around his eyes and skin deathly pale. His performance lacks the usual vitality. Rampling strikes a lot of sexy poses but fails to convince with her long-winded and ill-informed explanations about the ways of whales. The rest of the actors are wasted in brief and undeveloped roles, the most memorable of which sees Bo Derek getting her leg bitten off by the vengeful whale. The plot is total nonsense from start to finish, with such preposterous sequences as the whale deliberately starting a fire in the fishing village that engulfs and destroys the local refinery! Although it's credible to suppose that whales are intelligent creatures with genuine emotions, the idea that a whale could plot revenge against a single human adversary and carry it out so calculatedly is utterly absurd. Orca – Killer Whale is really one for completists of the man .vs. beast cycle from the late 70s. Most will come away from the film shaking their heads in disbelief and grinding their teeth with despair.

Thanks to a dull, dimensionless screenplay by Neil Simon, and lackluster direction from Robert Moore, Chapter Two becomes a shrill showcase for Marsha Mason who received her third of four Oscar nods for Chapter Two giving the same performance here that she gave in Cinnderella Liberty(73), The Goodbye Girl(77), Audrey Rose(78) and Only When I Laugh(81);only this time she doesn't have a child to drag around. Chapter Two is the third and last feature film for Moore having previously directed Neil Simon's The Cheap Detective(78) and Murder By Death(76). Caan is miscast, the characters are mono-dimensional, the dialog is overly analytical, and there's virtually no establishing detail. The first half is a less-than-captivating, meet cute, coy romance between a blinkered Caan and a chipper Mason, and the dreary second half makes you long for the first half. The NYC locations as well as Joe Bologna, and a painfully thin Valerie Harper are irrelevant, but at least they provide some welcome distraction. And last and least, there's an awful song played during the credits.

Citizen X tells the story of Andrei Chikatilo, The Ripper of Rostov, who killed 52 people in 8 years time, mainly women and children. It shows how the investigation was obstructed by Soviet bureaucracy, how hard it was to investigate the crimes. It does the job in such a brilliant way that it will leave no-one untouched. In the beginning it's perhaps a little bit slow of pace, but it really grabs you as the story unfolds. I can only say that, next to "The Silence of the Lambs", this is by far the best movie about a serial killer I've ever seen. <br /><br />It is very hard to say which actor's performance stands out above the rest in this movie. Stephen Rea is really brilliant as the inexperienced forensic expert who is put in charge of the investigation. Donald Sutherland's performance as his cynical superior, and the only person in the Russian government willing to help him, is as outstanding as Rea's. And what to say about Jeffrey DuMann, playing the serial killer? DuMann brilliantly created a character who inspires empathy rather than hatred. Yes, he is a monster, but he is also a sad figure, oppressed and ridiculed by his wife, his boss, his co-workers... He is tortured, ashamed, as well as extremely vicious.<br /><br />I can only recommend this movie to everybody who's interested in a well-made docu-drama, where the actors are still more important than the special effects. It deserves at least a 9/10, perhaps even more if you ask me.

<br /><br />When I first heard about this back in 1997, over coffee with friends, I decided to check it out. The only problem was that it was on a small screen at one of my local cinema's.<br /><br />That didn't stop the enjoyment of seeing a simply great movie, with a top notch cast in Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland, and Ben Kingsley. The whole movie, kept me glued to my seat. <br /><br />I simply found no flaws in this great movie, I give it my highest recommendation to those who love thrillers. I am very proud to have this in my collection.<br /><br />10/10 ( I don't hand this out lightly).

Wow! Only a movie this ludicrously awful could inspire the similar "Showgirls." I mean where to begin? The indescibably horrid theme song? Pia Zadora's non-expressions throughout the movie? The fact that despite being set in Los Angeles, aka "land of the casting couch" EVERY single man (and woman!) is fawning all over themselves to sleep with Pia Zadora, by any contrived means necessary? Or what about the fact that every person in the movie is totally unsympathetic because they're either mind-numbingly stupid (Pia) or obvious despicable sleazeball (everyone else)? And given that this flick was written by actual "screenwriters (sorta), it shows a shocking lack of understanding of the movie-making industry (who the Hell would admire and kiss up to a SCREENWRITER?)<br /><br />But it's (unintentionally) funny as hell though. The "breakdown" scene alone will have you giggling, and after seeing the climatic "I'm not the only one who had to **** her way to the top" scene at the "Awards" (all done in the usual bargain-basement acting level we expect from such quality thespians as Pia), I sincerely hope that our dear Pia actually reused that speech when she "won" her Golden Globe. It's fitting and that would totally make my day.<br /><br />Anyway, if you're a fan of bad, tashy camp, give this otherwise tacky movie a try.

I don't think any player in Hollywood history lasted as long as David Niven did given most of the weak films he had to carry by dint of his incredible charm. He could act, got an Oscar for it, but most of the material he did was as light as one ply of two ply tissue paper.<br /><br />Happy Go Lovely is a case in point. It's a musical and for the most part you'll remember Vera-Ellen's dancing. You'll remember that they are in Scot's costume as the film is set in Edinburgh during their festival. But if you can recall a single song from it you must have a photographic memory.<br /><br />The plot is light. Vera-Ellen is the American lead in a musical that apparently is getting its out of town tryout in Edinburgh. She starts in the chorus and runs late one day. She gets a lift from the chauffeur of a millionaire greeting card king. Everybody now assumes she's the main squeeze of the millionaire. Doors open up as they've never opened before.<br /><br />The millionaire is David Niven and he goes along with it and the various situations that are engendered by the mistake. Cesar Romero has some good moments here as the frantic producer of this musical.<br /><br />In the end though Happy Go Lovely is light and harmless fluff which David Niven did so much of and got so tired of.

I am curious of what rifle Beckett was using in the movie, and also the caliber of the bullet that he was suppose to be firing. If this is loosely based on Carlos Hathcock's sniping, I am guessing that it is a 7mm. round. I am also curious of the rifle itself. He also made a comment in the final Sniper movie about the rifle that the Vietnamese man let him use that belonged to his father. Beckett mentioned that he thought it was the best sniper rifle ever made. I would like to know which rifle that is also. I know that this particular rifle was made around WWII or beforehand. I just couldn't get a close enough look at it watching the movie to identify it.<br /><br />As for Mr. Hathcocks kills, his longest shot was 1.47 miles, and he had 93 confirmed kills and 14 unconfirmed kills. After his wounds somewhat healed from being burned in Vietnam, he spent the rest of his career teaching snipers in the USMC the skills that they would need in the field. His sniping career is still mentioned to our brothers and sisters that train in the USMC. I found out his name from my friend who is a former Marine. Any information would be great.

All this talk about this being a bad movie is nonsense. As a matter of fact this is the best movie I've ever seen. It's an excellent story and the actors in the movie are some of the best. I would not give criticism to any of the actors. That movie is the best and it will always stay that way.

This is one of those movies that has everything in it. I don't think I would get tired of seeing it. Hopefully more movies like this one will be made in the future. The casting was perfect in all respects. In a sense, the song sung by Engelbert Humperdink "I Never Got to Say Goodbye", is the song come to life. You will most definitely laugh and cry throughout the entire scenario for sure. I'm just surprised that I had never seen it before this past weekend. I think that it's positively worth seeing, and your heart will be glowing. It would be nice to cuddle up with your "honey"; sip a cup of hot chocolate and enjoy being in the presence of each other. There is so much heart and emotion at times you honestly don't know where to turn. You will know exactly how the character feels. True family expression is available all the way through. In fact, at times you'll even think you are part of that family or they a part of yours. See it!

I'm not sure I've ever seen a film as bad as this. Awful acting, All over the place plot, terrible special effects. There are some 'so bad its good' moments in here but not really enough to maintain interest. The woman who plays Tracey looks hideous. There are some fairly worrying scenes with a dwarf which leave you feeling ever so slightly violated. On the plus side the operation scenes are fairly amusing for the special effects as is the car chase where one car is "trying to force us off the road" without actually making contact. Guess the budget didn't stretch to trashing cars. Oh and what looks like a Postcard of the Taj Mahal is shown every time they cut to the fictional foreign country.

My first clue about how bad this was going to be was when the video case said it was from the people who brought us Blair Witch Project which was a masterpiece in comparison to this piece of garbage. The acting was on the caliber of a 6th grade production of Oklahoma and the plot, such as there was, is predictable, boring and inane. 85% of the script is four letter words and innumerable variations on them. Mother F seems to be the "writer's" favorite because it is used constantly. It must have taken all of 10 minutes to write this script in some dive at last call. Thank God I rented it and could jump through most of it on fast forward. Don't waste your time or money with this.

This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...<br /><br />This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.<br /><br />Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go.

I have never seen a show as good as Full House. Full House puts all of the newer shows to shame, big time! Anyone who has never seen it, which I don't see how it is possible, should see it. It is a great show for anyone of any age. Full House will make you laugh, it will make you cry, it will amaze you. True, some people feel that there are some "cheesy" aspects to the show, but, the positive aspects out weigh all of the "cheesy" aspects. Full House ran it's first episode on September 22, 1987 entitled "Our Very First Show" and ran it's last episode on May 23, 1995 entitled "Michelle Rides Again Part II".<br /><br />The plot of the show is very believable. Danny Tanner (Bob Saget) losses his wife, Pam, in an accident involving a drunk driver. Danny has his brother in law, Jesse Katsopolis (John Stamos), which is Pam's younger brother, and Danny also brings in his best friend Joey Gladstone (Dave Coulier) to help him raise his three daughters. Danny's daughters are named DJ (Candice Cameron-Bure), Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin), and Michelle (Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen).Joey and Jesse plan on moving in with Danny and his three girls for a few months just to help out and end up living with them for eight years; which is the number of years the show ran for.<br /><br />The following is a short description of some of the characters and the actor/actress who played him/her: John Stamos (Jesse): John Stamos is a great actor. He plays Jesse. Jesse is a rock star waiting to get his big break. In Full House, John Stamos does a great job portraying his character. He looked and played music like his idol, Elvis Presley.<br /><br />Bob Saget (Danny): Bob Saget is also a great actor. He looses his wife in car accident involving a drunk driver. He has to raise three girls without a having the girl's Mother. Bob Saget does a great job portraying a single parent who works full time and still has time to raise his three girls.<br /><br />Dave Coulier (Joey): One word can describe Dave Coulier, funny. He is great. Playing the character of Joey was perfect for him. He does a great job playing the stand-up comedian waiting for his big break.<br /><br />Candice Cameron-Bure (DJ): She is a tremendous actress. She plays the oldest sister, DJ which is short for Donna Jo. She is one of the best actresses I have ever seen. Her acting ability in Full House was very believable.<br /><br />Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie): Two simple words can describe Jodie Sweetin, incredibly amazing! I wish I could say every thing that I would like to say about Jodie, but, I would use up the 1,000 word maximum just on her. She got her start in a kids show called Mother Goose Stories and when she came to Full House, she blew the audience's and creator's mind. Her great looks and absolutely amazing acting ability helped to make the show the success that it was. According to Dave Coulier, Jodie was supposed to be the star of the show. It was supposed to be where she was going to get her big break. Jodie, at five years old when the show first aired, could hit every line perfectly. She showed great enthusiasm. Most young kids can't do this. As you can probably guess, Jodie Sweetin (Stephanie) is my favorite character in Full House.<br /><br />Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (Michelle): Great actress. Full House is where they got their start. They received the part of Michelle because they were the only babies who did not cry while in front of a camera.<br /><br />There are many more cast members that should be recognized. These are the original characters from when the show first went on the air in 1987.<br /><br />The only negative thing that I can say is how Full House became The Michelle Show towards the end. I think it was to focused on her towards the end. Especially when I think Jodie and Candice were much better at acting.<br /><br />Full House is a great show for everyone. It can teach you a lot. One of the biggest things it can teach you is that everyone can live a great life even if a tragedy, such as loosing a family member, occurs. Full House continues to attract new fans. With all this said, there is only a couple things left to say; Full House will never die, and, thank you, the cast of Full House, for giving everyone a show that they can enjoy.

Since the start of her career in the 70's and vastly throughout the exuberant 80's, Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) has grown into a modest icon and genuine cult figure in the world of horror & bad monster movies. While Ms. Peterson has taken on various supporting roles in motion pictures, covering a wide variety in genres, it was her TV-character Elvira that brought her the most fame. Part of her charm – and respect from the fans – lies in the fact she never turned her back on the horror genre that made her famous (unlike many other big name actors & actresses that like to distantiate themselves from their "early" work). I've seen only bits & pieces of her TV performances, but her cameo role in Ghoultown's recent tribute song "Mistress of the Dark" really encouraged me to check out more of her stuff. One thing had been clear to me already long before this music video: Over the years, Elvira had become a force of influence herself by the time the mid-80's came around.<br /><br />And in 1988, after films like "Fright Night" and "TerrorVision" incorporated homages to and spoofs on her TV-work, it finally happened: "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark", the motion picture. Now, I had seen the trailer for it already back in the VHS rental days, but it took me until last week to finally see the actual film. A few years ago, I did manage to watch "Elvira's Haunted Hills" (made in 2001), but for some reason it didn't impress me all that much. Was it really that forgettable, or should I give it another watch? I actually really do feel like re-watching it now, as this first Elvira film from '88 really convinced me. Though perhaps partly responsible for making this film work, might be Sam Egan and John Paragon with their contributions to the script, there really is no way to deny it: Cassandra Peterson has a great feel for comedy (she also co-wrote the screenplay).<br /><br />When Elvira learns she's one of the beneficiaries of a Great Aunt (she never heard of before), she takes it as the long cherished opportunity to start up her own show in Las Vegas. Out to claim her rightfully inherited money, she travels to a quiet New England town. But the uptight townspeople of Falwell are in for a treat. In less than no time she manages to shock and insult all noteworthy inhabitants of the conservative little town with her (often unintentionally) provocative behaviour. To make things worse, her inheritance turns out not to be what she expected: A rundown mansion, a cookbook and a poodle. But what she doesn't know, and her evil uncle Vincent Albot does, is that her Great Aunt was a witch, and the cookbook contains recipes to concoct the most hellishly dark powers imaginable. And if you haven't turned off the movie yet by the time Elvira has cooked up her first dish from the recipe-book, then rest assured, you're going to sit out this ride with a smile on your face.<br /><br />It's surprising how a script rigged together with boob-jokes, witty one-liners, movie references, inside jokes and bade taste merriment also manages to tell a coherent story. Simple, of course, but coherent. While other movies, heavily relying on gag-like situations, often make you loose track of the story completely (like the "Naked Gun" films, for example), this film doesn't. A lot of horror-comedies were being produced during the 80's, but not a lot of them actually worked. Let alone a horror-spoof that doesn't derail at some point ("Killer Party", although I'm grateful for this one going completely bonkers during the finale) or becomes too tedious too quickly ("Saturday the 14th"). Although "Elvira" is more comedy than horror, it doesn't loose track of what it's doing and consistently builds up towards a mildly grotesque finale, complete with a supernatural showdown in the streets of Falwell between newborn witch Elvira and evil uncle wizard Talbot, including a real honest-to-god witch hunt and Elvira's very own burn-at-the-stake moment.<br /><br />I'm telling you, there's no power in hell that could make this movie unfunny. One of the first giggles I got was during the opening credits already, when Daniel Greene's name appeared. Daniel who? Oh yes, I recognized his name (and later on his dim-witted macho-face). How can one not forget Daniel Greene once you've seen... "Atomic Cyborg aka Fists of Steel"! But if you haven't seen "Atomic Cyborg", then I'm sorry, but you won't be able to laugh with his face in this one. And on a side-note: I never could have imagined Elvira looking this cool while ignorantly driving away from a gas station. Even Robert Rodriguez could not have made that shot look any better.

At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.<br /><br />Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.

The world is going to miss John Frankenheimer. This was his first feature film and it was four years before he directed his second, but don't let that dissuade you from seeking it out. Frankenheimer's direction is assured, and he gets some compelling performances out of his cast.<br /><br />Someone else has already pointed them out, but I also want to talk up James Gregory and Whit Bissell in two key supporting roles. Both would work for Frankenheimer again -- Gregory most notably as the bumbling senator in "The Manchurian Candidate" -- and they do good work for him here.<br /><br />If the whole thing seems too simple in the end, that's merely because Frankenheimer and writer Robert Dozier chose to tell a simple story, and they do it well. Keep a lookout for it -- Turner Classic Movies just might show it again.

Great horror comedy from Michael Davis.Iwas laughing so hard i almost peed! Great acting from Eric Jungman as the good guy who saves the day & great performance by the Jack Black-esquire like performance from Justin Urich. He was just divine in this film. This guy deserves to be a big star. Also,Aimee Brooks was good in the film as well as the girl in danger along with the guys from a killer reminiscent of Jeepers Creepers. The gore to was given in copious amounts & i loved it.I just hope they release a not rated version. Great low-budget Horror Comedy. The dead cat in the hotel sex scene is just gruesomely funny! ***** out of *****

Most of the episodes on Season 1 are awful..There is no comparison to Twilight Zone or Outer Limits, as they programs actually had decent story lines. Most of Amazing Stories are well dull..not amazing in the least..go rent or buy the Twilight Zone series...I have heard Season 2 of this series is much better..also for some reason on the DVD's they cut out the Ray Walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. The one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985...Most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering...

then the second half of this movie is hard to follow. I got the first part with the Spanish Inquistion, but the film skipped many years forward with the French ruling Spain. The movie does little to fill you in on what happened, and I don't remember much about it. So, the movie gets confusing then. The movie begins when Ines, daughter of a rich merchant, is accused of Judiasm by the church, specifically Father Lorenzo. She is put to the Question and forced to confess. Even her family's wealth can not buy her out of prison. Her father forces Lorenzo to sign a confession saying he is the offspring of a chimp, in hopes of getting Ines released. All it does is give a reason for the church to condemn Lorenzo, who runs off to France.<br /><br />Then, the movie skips many years, and the French Revolution is in full force. Ines is released from prison. It was very good make up work to make Natalie Portman look that tore up. She finds her family dead and seeks Goya for her help. She tells him she had a child in prison. Goya sets up a meeting between her and Lorenzo, whom is now with the French and in power. He is the father. Goya sees the daughter and tells Lorenzo, whom decides it's best to send her off to America, so no one will find out. But before his plans get carried out, the British join the Spainish, and Spain reclaims power and he is now the persecuted. That part is not well told in the film. It's like the film shows this to happen in a day.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: The movie is good until it skips many years in time after the Inquistion, then the movie expects you to understand what is going on. It just got too confusing to me then.

Not too good a movie. Sure, it contains action, but the effects aren't all that good for a '08 movie. Gunshot effects are downright horrible. Acting is "meh" <br /><br />It is nothing like Far Cry, other than names and the very basics of the story (genetically enhanced super soldiers going amok). The super soldiers are very different, the mercenaries are different, the setting are completely different (tropical island in the pacific in the game, island in northern-ish America in the movie).<br /><br />I loved playing Far Cry. I loved the story and setting. I hated the movie.

I liked this movie. That's pretty much all I can say about it. Lou Gossett did a good job, even though I'm still very disappointed in him after all the Iron Eagle movies. And even if I was smiling on the inside when the first main teenager dies (I won't give it away) it was done in a nice, fitting fashion. Pretty much everyone in this movie does a good job, so check it out! It's another one of those movies I found real cheap, so I bought it, and I recommend the same.

True, there are many movies much worse then this movie. This movie was no Manos: The Hands of Fate, or Troll 2 (yes, I have seen them both.. twice) but at the same time this movie is No Alien, Predator or even Alien Vs. Predator (Yes, even that movie surpassed this). Movies like this make Battlefield Earth look like a Star Wars it is so bad. Razzie awards lookout, your biggest competition has just arrived in theaters. This film I'm talking about is of course Alone in the Dark. I'll try to take you though a step by step process on why this film was so bad.<br /><br />Acting- I'll first start off with what perhaps was the best component of this film (next to the ending credits, which played 'Wish I had An Angel', the acting. Christian Slater must be proud of himself, he successfully proved that it is possible to act decent in a film worse then drinking antifreeze. Though all his awful dialog he had to speak, it made me wonder why he just didn't walk off the set halfway. Perhaps it was because of Stephen Dorff being in the film as well (somebody he wishes he could be but fails at it). Tara Reid is a bad actress but good looking and that's all that really matters in films like these. That is not to say the acting was perfect though, it was average, not good, and perhaps the only thing in the film not good.<br /><br />The Soundtrack- Except for 'Wish I had An Angel', the soundtrack is pointless and bad heavy medal being pumped into the viewers ears, perhaps to disguise the awful story (something I will get to soon). A long and very expensive 2 CD soundtrack is now up for sale for those musically challenged.<br /><br />The Directing- Directed by Hollywoods favorite director Uwe Ball who brought us the classic House of the Dead. Telling us "Yes, movies can get this utterly bad and that's just the beginning to my deadly saga of awful movies". At least it is said to be directed by Uwe Ball. Without being told I would have guessed a monkey was kidnapped from the Congo, brought here and forced to make opinions on how to make the movie under penalty of being shocked. The director of photography was probably a camcorder taped onto a skateboard and pushed forward until it hits a wall. On the scenes where the camera should stay still it is constantly moving, not allowing us to stop anywhere and when it should be moving in action, the camera stops for some reason.<br /><br />The Producing- Who on earth is stupid enough to put money towards this bomb? I pity the fool... sometimes. Sometimes I'm glad he or she was taught such a lesson to never put money towards garbage worse then dog dung tied up in a bag.<br /><br />The Writing / Storyboard- Trying to Analise the story is more painful then jamming an ice pick under a big toe and kicking a soccer ball as hard as I possibly could with it right after but I will still attempt it.<br /><br />Edward Carnby escapes as a child from an orphanage where 20 children where to go under science experiments. He escapes and hides in an electrical outlet where he is electrocuted (this is the point where it got so bad i started to laugh out loud). Then it fast-forwards many years later where he's a paranoia detective. He get's attacked by some zombie that can't be shot to death, kills it and moves on with life. Later on he gets attacked by some crazy looking monster and he discovers secrets that nobody else knows.<br /><br />Yeah, the plot is bad, really really bad. The film beings with expecting us to read approximately 10 minutes, which felt like 100, of random text about an untrue civilization called the Abskani. The film goes not to have one twist after another, more then the audience can handle, more then the audience wants to handle, more then the audience could ever care about. This storyline is rock bottom bad that even Double Dragon does better.<br /><br />Overall, miss out on this movie. I gave it a 1 out of 10 but that is because there is no 0.

American Pie: Beta House is sort of in limbo between genres. On the one hand, it's a comedy with no plot and few genuinely clever jokes. On the other hand, it's porno that's a tad too soft-core to actually turn on any viewers. Essentially Beta House is a collage of sex scenes - some humiliating, others just lame attempts at humor - with a couple thin plot points thrown in an effort at cohesiveness. The characters are barely even two-dimensional, most development relies on knowledge of Naked Mile, and the "important" plot scenes are so far apart that you wonder why the writers even felt the need for a story.<br /><br />In all fairness, I did not go into this movie without expectations. I liked the original three American Pie movies, and thought Band Camp and Naked Mile were solid rentals. I thought Naked Mile was almost good enough to be released in theaters, and so when I saw that some of the same characters were returning for Beta House, I was excited to see this installment. I was aware that there would be numerous scenes of debauchery and sexual humiliation in multiple forms. And I was fine with it, because in the past, these scenes were backed by the story and were well integrated into the plot. In Beta House, however, it's almost as if the writers forgot why the formula in the other AP movies worked. They spent too much energy working in the nudity that they forgot to actually write a story.<br /><br />This movie is a disappointment and not even worth a one-dollar rental. The jokes are lame, the story is non-existent, and the porno-aspect is too tame if that's all you really care about seeing.

Definitely spoilers in this review! I **adore** American Gothic and have done since I first saw it late at night when it first aired on Ch4 in the UK when I was 14. The comparisons made to Stephen King are just about right. It's small town supernatural eeriness but with fantastic layered characters. Best of all, and the reason I love it so much, is it had the guts to never be black and white! Lucas Buck though lacking any conscience often works by, as he says, giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. His manipulation only works because of other people's weak morals. Caleb though generally a thoughtful, kind, insightful boy can at times show the latent dark side inherited from his father. None of the characters are wholly good or bad with even the angelic Merlyn showing a wrathful side through reckless vengeance in The Plague Sower. Not only that but having Gail, the closest thing to a mother figure for Caleb, not only sleep with but fall in love with Lucas despite all she knows made me realise this show would just go there and not apologise for it. I'm a huge Buffy fan, but when that show tried to go really 'dark' in later seasons it failed miserably because it lost it's humorous side and didn't commit fully to its ideas. AG shows that you can have a morally bankrupt character right at the heart of the show, and still have a hell of laugh doing it.<br /><br />I can't even think about why it was cancelled as I'll just get too angry at the ridiculousness of it all. So much rubbish on TV and good, original shows get kicked around and stamped on. Thanks to the emergence of DVD at least I can see the show in it's entirety! Yes some of the visuals look dated now, but the creepy strange atmosphere is provided well enough by the story lines. The actors also all give such perfect performances that it more than makes up for some odd camera work.<br /><br />The only reason why I think someone may not like this show is that it isn't like the X-files where there are cases to 'solve' or Lost where there's huge unanswered questions. It's pretty obvious from the get go that Lucas Buck has some kind of evil powers, and that the show is all about fighting for Caleb's soul. So this show might frustrate people looking for a purpose or an unknown 'truth' to find. Yes there are some mysterious unanswered aspects, with some such as the truth about Gails parents getting resolved, but unlike Lost and X-files this show isn't about trying to find out more 'facts' about what's going on IMO. It's all about the characters and the way they have to confront moral choices in the twisted world of Trinity. Personally I would just get such a kick out of seeing Lucas turn every situation to his advantage.<br /><br />All in all the main thing I have to say is CHECK IT OUT. I'm pretty certain most fantasy/horror fans will LOVE it. Also even though it got cancelled all characters have arcs and there is enough in the finale to give some small sense of closure. The only hanging thread I felt was Dr Matt. Having him not be in the final episodes is strange. <br /><br />I would have done anything for a second season, but at least the full 22 episodes exist and perhaps given how brainless some TV execs appear to be I should be glad this wonderful show got made at all!!!

As a producer of indie movies and a harsh critic of such, I have to say I loved this movie. It is funny and intelligent, well directed and entertaining. Hats off to the producers and directors for making a good one! I'll be watching for the next one. I gave it a 10.

EDDIE MURPHY DELIRIOUS is easily the funniest stand-up concert film I have ever seen. Most stand-up acts usually have lulls at some point, but not this one folks. For 90 min there is not one moment that is not side-splittingly funny. From the moment Eddie does a hilariously dead-on impression of Mr.T, the laughs are non-stop.<br /><br />Sadly, this was done in 1983, and Eddie hasn't done anything nearly as funny. it's unbelievable that the man who wrote this phenomenally brilliant show, wrote a movie called HARLEM NIGHTS which was not very funny at all.<br /><br />Eddie, if you're out there, please go back and do a concert film in the vein of DELIRIOUS. Believe me your fans will love you for it. And I think you know that.

I've just finished viewing the 1st disc in a 4-disc (26 episodes) collection created in conjunction with the UCLA Film & Television Archive (S'More Entertainment, Inc.). So far (aside from the 1st episode), the image quality is quite good. The DVD box is shown on the title page here on IMDb.<br /><br />"Mr. Peepers" is just as charming as when I first saw it (5-years old at the time) and Wally Cox is truly endearing in this role. If you're in the mood for quiet comedy that sneaks up on you, as opposed to hitting you over the head, you'll treasure this chance to experience all the wonderful characters you might remember from your childhood. Although some of the gags are a bit corny, most are ingenious and well-executed...and even the corny ones are fun. This is one TV series that lives up to my early childhood memories of it.

The New Batman Adventures (also called Gotham Knights) takes place 5 years after the final episodes of Batman: the Animated Series (B:TAS) and only aired for 24 episodes. This isn't a horrible show, but it just isn't as good as the original Batman Animated Series. I'll start with all the things that I found not to be very good.<br /><br />First thing's first, the animation itself: long and sweet, Gotham isn't dark anymore, the sky is always bright red and orange, B:TAS did this also, but it was drawn on a dark palate, do the colour of the sky was more ominous, in this show, the colour of the sky is too bright. It all just looks like any other kids show and doesn't seem unique like Batman: TAS did with it's dark, cool art style on Gotham. The art style is OK, but doesn't remind me of Batman anymore. Every character is comprised of straight lines, squares, and triangles making characters look less human-like. In the original series (B:TAS), characters look more like drawn versions of real people. The animation may be more consistent here than in B:TAS, but it definitely isn't as good. <br /><br />Next: some of the episodes seem too dumbed down and childish, but some of the subject matter is even stronger than in B:TAS.(Two-Face attempting to kill Tim Drake/Robin 2, and some villains get some pretty harsh treatment). This leads me to my next point.<br /><br />Because this is supposed to take place in the future as well as the final episodes of the Batman Animated Universe, many villains do meet their demise or leave forever. Poison Ivy apparently drowns when a cruise ship explodes; Two-Face nearly kills Penguin, Killer Croc, and himself, so he's moved to Arkham forever; Joker falls into the exhaust tower of an industrial plant (though he will return later on the Justice League Animated Series); Catwoman moves away to France leaving Batman, etc... Just because the series is ending does not mean that they have to get rid of some great characters! The villains' motives are pretty bad, too. There are none! In B:TAS, we learn that these villains are mentally tormented and their lives are ruined, that's why they act the way they do, in this show, the villains are just committing crimes to progress the story. It's like Batman just doesn't even care about saving whatever sanity there is left in the people that he fights, he just beats them senseless. This Batman is a colder and meaner version of the character, but since he's been doing this job for years, I can see why he is so harsh. <br /><br />Next, the redesigned character models: they're awful. Gordon slimmed down about 100 pounds... is he sick? Many villains look STUPID (Joker, Riddler, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, Mad Hatter, and Killer Croc are among the WORST). Although, I do think that some characters look better (Bane, Scarecrow, Batgirl). Harley is about the same, and Ivy (who is even hotter now) has pale green skin.<br /><br />With the series having many faults, some episodes are great- Over the Edge, Mad Love, Beware the Creeper, Girls Night Out, Old Wounds, Legends of the Dark Knight, and Never Fear are my favourite ones here, in my opinion. All of the crossovers featuring Batman in the Superman Animated Series were great, also.<br /><br />The absolute WORST part about this show is how the creators say they love the animation of this series more than the original. On the DVD features of the original Batman Animated Series, they talk about how proud they were with the art style, and how difficult some characters were to animate, but they did eventually succeed with (the difficult animation necessary to animate Clayface, for example). On the DVD features of the New Batman Adventures, the creators basically say "To Hell with B:TAS, this is a fresh, new re-vamp, it looks better and we love how we NEARLY RUINED THE SERIES!" (Alright, that is an exaggeration). When the creators cast away the amazing art style of B:TAS, that really annoyed me!<br /><br />It's not a bad show, but I still don't like it as much as the original animated series. At least the show doesn't talk down to its audience, so for that reason, I still commend it. Though some of the episodes in this new series are fantastic and worth watching. <br /><br />Superman: the Animated Series, and Justice League: the Animated Series are great follow-up shows to Batman: the Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures, so give them a watch as well.

This movie rocks" Jen sexy as ever and Polly wow were we really ever that young this movie can still touch the hearts of a lot of teens it needs to be put on DVD soon or it will become a classic. i Really enjoyed growing up to this movie i have always had a crush on Jen now i am too old but to this movie is made for all gens> you know i come from the early 80,s area were i Had to watch everyone els live the life i wanted but thru movies i can do that all over again i guess in short i am hoping and wishing that this movie not be lost in time but reborn to the youth so they may enjoy the heart warm filling you get learning about hormones and datting problems and how to get away with stuff that seems so major back then but don't mean nothan now so this movie is a dating tool.

Being from eastern PA, right on the border of Northern New Jersey, I still get a feeling like this was a documentary more so than a movie. I have friends from New York and New Jersey and this film represents the kind of lifestyle that "still" exists today in lower income area's outside of the "Big City" lifestyle. If you have not seen this movie and ever wondered what REALLY goes on in the urban jungle, check this movie out. No really big name actors, its as if they just pulled these guys off the street and said act, which adds to the realism of the movie, the performances are FANTASTIC none the less! SEE THIS FILM!

I have seen films come and go in my years,and when i see a disaster film i keep hoping i wont be disappointed.And with this one i was not in the least.The story of a whole country sinking into the ocean was a great concept written by sakyo komatsu,a novelist with intense theories on where this earth is going.The characters were top notch,and even though i am not Japanese,i didn't need a translator to give the idea of how people in their most desperate needs can come together for the common good.The special effects blew me away,i was literally on the edge of my seat watching the tidal waves lava flows and land explosions that must have taken months of work to perfect.As for the acting i thought yes,this is acting at its best,emotions run rampant throughout the film and i cried at the most severe scenes.For movie goers alike,you don't need to speak or understand Japanese to watch this film,you can get the idea and feeling from each person and character to understand it well and to follow it along like you are there.My hats off to Shinji Higuchi for directing it,i hope he can outdo his work with another mind blowing experience.As i said,....Fantastic Film.

I am a back Batman movie and TV fan. I loved the show (new and old) and I loved all the movies. But this movie is not as great as some people were hopeing it to be. In my opinon, it is a big let down. I think the problem was it had no drama. Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm and Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker had a lot of drama. and Batman & Mr. Freeze: Sub Zero had some drama too. Also, I think this movie is to light for Batman. The only scene that seems a little dark is the big fight with Bane at the end. Anyways, it's an ok Batman movie. But I would just rent it.

This is Paul F. Ryan's first and only full-length feature. He hasn't done anything since. However, he managed to get an amazing ensemble cast to portray the characters of his story. I don't know when or why the idea emerged in his head, but Ryan wrote a screenplay which later became his own directed movie, "Home room".<br /><br />Busy Philipps carries the movie on her shoulders as Alicia, a troubled girl; the ones we always see in television series. With dark hair and black clothes; a package of cigarettes in the pocket, weird look and disturbing eyes (with makeup, of course). An event has occurred at her school; a shooting. Some students have died, and she saw everything. Now Detective Martin Van Zandt (Victor Garber) is investigating the case, and, as expected, Alicia is a suspect. But the shooting is just the genesis; the movie is not about the shooting.<br /><br />Lying in bed in a hospital room is Deanna Cartwright (Erika Christensen). She is one of the survivors of the hospital. The script establishes a bond between them, by the school Principal (James Pickens Jr). He is helping all the students to recover from the event, but Alicia doesn't seem to care. She's isolated. So the Principal punishes her; she needs to visit Deanna every day until five o' clock. Then the movie starts.<br /><br />I can't even describe how wonderfully written I think the movie is. I can identify with the characters and the situations they live; I like reality. These things could happen to anyone. And the things they say are totally understandable. They're growing up and trying to deal with things they haven't experienced; they're doing their best. Without knowing it, Alicia (when she visits Deanna for the first time) and Deanna (when she sees Alicia standing in front of her) are commencing a journey of that will define their personalities and ideas for the next step in life; after high school.<br /><br />The director leads Christensen and Philipps through their roles very well. Look the contrast between them. Deanna seems naive and with plain thoughts; no complexity inside of her mind. When Alicia enters her room and sees tons of flowers she asks: "Who has brought them?". "Many people", Deanna answers; although some days later we learn they're from her parents, who come every week. The parental figures are all well represented, but are not as important as their sons' characters. Deanna is lonely. Alicia seems mature and violent; smoking cigarettes and talking roughly. But after two days of visiting, she finds herself coming back to the hospital every day; even sleeping in Deanna's room all night. When they both have a fight afterwards, I believe Deanna says: "Why do you keep coming back?". Alicia is lonely too.<br /><br />The ending of the movie, without ruining it, comes a bit disappointing; it's something I wasn't waiting for. It eliminates some of the strength the movie has. The revelation comes totally unnecessary; ruining the logical climax the movie could have had. It was an excellent script anyway; and an excellent direction. A damn fine movie.<br /><br />When it comes to Erika Christensen, this was the role she needed to fly higher. Her role in "Traffic" was impressing, but this was the big step; the main role. Maybe not many had the chance to see her in this film, and that's a pity. She hasn't made one false move since then. She has even come out with good performances in awful movies. On the other hand, Busy Philipps, who proved to be very promising in this movie (what a transformation), hasn't got many opportunities for other roles.<br /><br />The same I say about Paul F. Ryan (in directing, of curse), and I expect he is sitting now in his computer finishing his new script; I'm waiting for his next movie. I'm hoping the best for all of them.

Director Fred Schepisi(Roxanne) directs this well intentioned, but inferior comedy about Albert Einstein(Matthau) trying to hook his scientific niece(Ryan) up with ordinary guy Tim Robbins in order to get her to relax and enjoy life in the 1950's. To get Ryan to like Robbins, Einstein tries to make Robbins look like a brilliant scientist. The idea is cute, but the film falls flat with corny situations and silly dialogue. Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan, and the terrific supporting cast do their best to keep this silly comedy afloat, but are unable to rescue the film. Its unfortunate that so much talent went into producing such a lackluster movie. I would not recommend to anybody unless they are huge fans of Meg Ryan.

The motion picture was, in all likelihood, made in the year 1930 and released in 1931. I would surmise that talking motion pictures had great difficulty in making the transition from the silent era. Nevertheless, this particular Zane Grey plot appears to be very weak. Also, Gary Cooper was probably just learning to act. The result is something that would not be acceptable by today's standards. For 1931, maybe. For 2004, not acceptable. Some of the actors performed well. Sadly, the Indians always get the short end in these early westerns. They were living on the land long before the white man came, but according to twisted history, they had no right to defend themselves.

This is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen. I rented it as a joke, expecting to get a giggle out of the first few scenes, and let me just say I've never laughed so hard in my life. The first scene where ninjas randomly pop out of the air and start a huge and ridiculous fire fight is one of the most incredibly funny stupid action movie moments of my life. This is not a dinosaur movie, but more a movie that makes fun (and doesn't mean to at all) of the action genre. I didn't see the first two, but judging by the complexity of the plot, I don't think there's to much I missed. If you wanna see a movie that goes great with a six pack or any herbal remedy, than I insist you rent this movie and sit back and watch a 100 years of advancement in cinema get thrown in the trash and get shat on by carnosours

THE CELL fascinated me at first glance. I was a bit surprised about that fact, because the story of that movie is absolutely boring. If it had no story, the film would be better. Bunuels "Un chien andalou" comes to my mind- a film without story, but also with fascinating and sometimes disturbing images. But THE CELL is at first a Hollywood-Movie, and only second a piece of art. I'm very interested in Tarsem's next project. Hamlet on Indian could be very interesting, especially when it has the same looks as THE CELL.<br /><br />For film music enthusiasts: Howard Shore's score for THE CELL is absolutely marvelous, but a hard listening experience, because of its very modernistic style.

Sur mes lèvres or READ MY LIPS is fine little thriller that also examines the lives of 'outsiders', people who live in the periphery of our vision who struggle with the need to 'fit in'. Director Jacques Audiard with and co-writer Tonino Benacquista have created a tense, tight, completely entertaining little thriller that makes some significant statements about out of the norm individuals and their plights.<br /><br />Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is a plain Jane, mostly deaf, thirty something unnoticed secretary for a company whose life is one of social and sexual isolation and whose view of the future is rather bleak. Enter Paul (Vincent Cassel) a recent released ex-con parolee who responds to an ad to be Carla's assistant. There is a mutual physical repulsion at first meeting: Carla had hoped for a well-groomed, genteel man who might fulfill her fantasies and Paul is a coarse, unkempt sleazy guy who is not impressed with being a clerk. Their concepts change rather quickly when Paul salvages Carla's job by filling her request to steal a letter that would cost her her job and Paul discovers Carla's lip reading ability which he sees as a way to spy on the criminals from his past who threaten his life for money owed. So this odd couple of a team join forces and together enter a dangerous suspense filled ploy to gain Paul's safety and freedom. The relationship is full of twists and edge of the seat suspense with each of these unlikely characters fulfilling roles in their lives that fill the chinks in their walls of isolation in surprising ways.<br /><br />Devos and Cassel deliver bravura performances and the remainder of the cast is uniformly strong. Once again Alexandre Desplat has produced a musical score that enhances the tension and cinematographer Mathieu Vadepied finds all the right lighting and angles to suggest the worlds of isolation of the characters as well as the Hitchcockian sense of suspense. Director Audiard wisely manipulates a factor that is at once sensitive and transformative for the story: he shows us the difference between 'hearing' the world with and without hearing aids and in doing so makes some powerful social comments. This is a fine film that remains in the ranks of the best of the French film noir genre. Recommended. Grady Harp

This is an excellent film dealing with a potentially exploitative subject with great sensitivity. Anne Reid, previously best known in the UK for her TV roles including 'Dinnerladies' (a Victoria Wood scripted series on in-company catering workers, if you're wondering), gives a performance of finely judged understatement as May, a late-60s bereaved mother of two chattering class adults in an inner-London borough. Her husband Toots (Peter Vaughan) dies on their visit to the male of the latter species (Bobby), and we see the pair being rather casually greeted by Bobby and his family. May's teacher daughter Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) lives nearby, however, and the relationship between May and Paula initially appears closer. Thus when May decides she cannot live in her own home and comes back to London, she is able to stay in Paula's house and do some child-minding of Paula's more appreciative offspring.<br /><br />It is on May's visits to Bobby's house that she embarks on an affair with Darren, a mid-30s friend of Bobby who is working on a house extension. In what may be the first mainstream British film to so portray it, it is May and not Darren (Daniel Craig*) who initiates the encounter, and, at least to begin with, it seems that the relationship is founded on mutual respect. There is no explicit sexual content (at least in the DVD I saw: differences in the IMDb cast list suggests the existence of other versions), and the physical basis of the affair is handled directly but not exploitatively. More strongly portrayed is the relationship between May and daughter Paula, a recent convert to 'therapy and self-exploration', who announces that mummy has never been supportive of her. Paula is also Darren's lover, and when she finds May's explicit but rather poor drawings of Darren and May together, things go downhill in dramatic but controlled fashion. Only in an English film, perhaps, could a daughter announce that she is going to hit her mother, politely ask her to stand up, and duly wallop her.<br /><br />In the mean time, May is being drawn into a putative relationship with a decent but older (of her own generation) member of Paula's writing group. The contrast between the ensuing unwanted intercourse and her affair with Darren is clearly made; it is at that point that May starts to acquiesce to Paula, and Darren's worm begins to turn (he reveals on cocaine that he may have been after her money, if not all along, but for some of the ride). So May finds herself superfluous to both of her children's needs, and finally does return home (but later leaves on a jet plane for pastures new).<br /><br />The film's strength is that it portrays with unflinching but sympathetic truth the nature of contemporary adult parent-sibling relationships, where bereavement may leave the surviving parent feeling more alone than if they had no-one to care for them. This is not new, but the openness of the portrayal of sexual need in the over-60s may well be. The darkness of the film's content, from a screenplay by Hanif Kureishi, stands in contrast to the way in which it is lit (it seems to be perpetual summer), and the overall mood is uplifting - it could so easily have been yet another piece set in a dour and rainy England. The ending is perhaps under-written, as we don't know where May is going or for how long - perhaps she's Shirley Valentine with a pension, she's certainly no Picasso. Anne Reid is, however, revealed as a fine actor whose professional life will surely have changed forever. Like Julie Andrews in Torn Curtain (said by Paul Newman), "There goes your Mary Poppins {read Dinnerladies} image for good".<br /><br />* Yes, he: announced Oct 2005 as the new James Bond.

You remember the Spice Girls movie and how bad it was (besides the songs), well their manager Simon Fuller (also this band's manager) makes the same error putting S Club (another of my favourite bands) in their own film. S Club: Tina Barrett, Jon Lee, Bradley Mcintosh, Jo O'Meara, Hannah Spearritt and Rachel Stevens (what happened to the seventh member, Paul Cattermole?) basically ask their boss for a break, they go on, and while there they see themselves on TV! Three of them swap, and vice versa, half discover they are clones made by a greedy scientist, and the other half just get themselves in trouble. Also starring Gareth Gates as a clone of himself. This film may have more of a plot than Spice Girls' film did, but besides the songs "Bring It All Back", "Don't Stop Movin'" and "Never Had A Dream Come True" this is no goo reason to see this film. Not too long after the band split for good. Adequate!

Words cannot express how poor this film is.<br /><br />There is no plot, the acting is appalling, basically the whole film is a joke.<br /><br />With a running time of 97 minutes, it's about 96 minutes too long.<br /><br />It might have been OK as a short sketch on a comedy show, but the premise is way too flimsy to work for that amount of time without boredom kicking in.<br /><br />Avoid this one, go rent a good movie instead!

i just wanted to say that when i was young my favorite t.v show back in the day was night heat. I loved the characters and the plot of the show. I thought that it was an excellent show and still do to this day. I enjoy watching the reruns and I am a big fan.I love the way the characters played off one another.I would always stay up late to watch my favorite show with my mother who also was a big fan. Now I can enjoy watching my show again and listening to the theme song.Which I thought was a cool song for the show.My favorite characters were Scott Hylands and Jeff Wincott.I enjoyed watching these handsome guys take down the bad boys.