Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds

like 0

Nicely done evil little comedy pitting the FBI against organized crime with a nice lady caught in the middle. The actress who played the jealous wife of the mob boss 'Tony the Tiger' almost stole the show with her raging tantrums. 3 stars

lovely. i just love the movie. i want to see this movie because Rupert Grint is a fantastic actor. his expressions are great, spectacular. the movie was excellent. Julie Walters it was perfect too. I think that Rupert is the only boy with red hair that i love. Rupert have a beautiful smile, a beautiful voice. and a wonderful accent. i think that the movie was great and was great see Rupert in another thing but harry potter. and its a very good actor, so it deserves that and more. he just have a golden globe but probably it deserves an Oscar academy award. there are some actors that do not act very well but have a Oscar anyway. it does not matter. but he is perfect, brilliant and beautiful

I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )! <br /><br />Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat!

First of all, those who are faint at heart should definitely avoid this film. Even those, like me, who are desensitized to most graphically violent and sexual acts in movies should beware. I'm not telling you to steer away from the film, but be aware that what you're about to see is some disturbing material. Definitely not a pleasing film to watch, but nothing is put on screen strictly for shock value. But I must admit, when I watched the film for a second time, I had to skip to the next chapter when the "razor blade scene" came up. <br /><br />The main character is one of the most unsympathetic sympathetic characters I can think of, but we start to better realize the humanity of her character later in the film's second act. In one scene, she stuffs broken glass in one of her student's jacket pocket after being dissatisfied with her apparently unsatisfactory performance and getting nervous when in front of a live audience. The student goes into her pocket and cries out with pain as she stares at her blood-stained hand. Next to the razor blade scene, that disturbed me most. The student's mother is not much more sympathetic than she. When she gets word that her daughter won't be able to play, she talks about it like she also got also her hand injured, being one of those spoiled mothers who tries to torture her daughter into becoming an overachiever. <br /><br />Though the film intrigued me and caught my interest for the most part, I felt more needed to be explained about Isabelle Huppert's character. When a woman is fascinated by sadomasochistic porno movies and engaging in that behavior herself, you want to understand the root of the problem. The movie establishes that she wants desperately to be loved. Then why the hateful attitude towards everyone? Why does she receive sexual pleasure from pain? <br /><br />The acting is terrific and I liked the glossy, stylized lighting. Altogether, it's not a film I'd recommend if you're in the mood to be entertained, but as I said it's very intriguing. And I'm sure if I watched it a few more times, I'd be able to spot certain subtleties that'll shed more light on aspects of the film I didn't realize initially. <br /><br />My score: 7 (out of 10)

There are just so many things wrong with this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to "The Wiz" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.<br /><br />Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.<br /><br />Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the "new Ursula"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.<br /><br />Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.<br /><br />All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.<br /><br />Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad.

Why is impossible to write in french ? Very Kitch! This journey in the center of the earth is despicable technical possibilities nevertheless current in 1976. These big "Casimir" of monsters is completely ridiculous! The film deserve however a "remake", as was "KING KONG" (the last one), with a little more supplied scenario. The professor has resemblances with the Professor Calculus and is rather funny. David (the character) is enough inconsistent but cross(spend) to the people from below a good message " you unite and will overcome you! " Altogether we would say a film made in the 40s. Now that I said everything (or almost) the evil of which i thought of it, we can say that if we have the brain get tired or anything has to see of the other one, then the thing(matter) is even rather entertaining. Hugh! Such is my opinion! (translating French to English with "Reverso" : sorry for possible mistakes !)

I am normally a Spike Lee fan. It takes some time to really get into his "mojo", but once you see the clear message and the ability to tell the story that is close to his heart, Lee is a genius. Unlike The 25th Hour or Bamboozled (two of my favorite films of his), there was no clear story in this film. I was able to understand the struggle between Washington and the choice to play well or be influenced by others, but for some odd reason Lee was never able to get the true feeling out. Washington did a decent job with what was handed to him, but you could tell that this was not Lee's favorite film. Not only did Lee direct this film, but he also wrote it. You could tell. The camera work was horrid and the writing only contributed to the decay of the film. This film was coming full circle and it wasn't going to be pretty. Lee was not 100% behind this film as he was with Do the Right Thing. Of all the films I have seen Lee direct, this was the brightest and more modest of his films. It was almost as if he created a Hollywood movie instead of one that was all his own. I don't know if he saw the money from Do the Right Thing and ran with it, or what … but this film did not demonstrate his true talent.<br /><br />For anyone out there that has seen this film, and perhaps stopped watching anything directed by Spike Lee afterwards due to this film, I suggest you give him a second chance. Don't get me wrong, I see exactly where you are coming from with this film and why you would want to put this behind you, but Lee does grow up. His work becomes more of his own, and you can see the transformation from a desire to make money to just wanting to make good films. It took me awhile to watch The 25th Hour, but when I did, it was sheer brilliance. Perhaps it was the actors, perhaps the story, but Lee crafted an amazing film out of one man's journey into the unknown. I guess that is what I was hoping Mo' Better Blues would turn out to be. This really dark journey into the life of a man that really never grew up, but instead all I got was Denzel being Denzel. He really is one of the most versatile actors of this generation, and I do consider him the Sydney Poitier of cinema, but this was not the film to showcase his talent.<br /><br />Another issue that I had with this film was the use of Spike's sister playing one of the love interests. I don't know about you, and your family, but I do not think that I could have filmed a sex scene with my sister. I don't care who the actor is or how much money I am getting paid, I would never do it. It is just something that I never wish to see, but apparently that is different for Spike. He went ahead and showed the full nude image of his sister without any remorse. It was sad and it even made me blush. Also, I need somebody to answer me this. What was Flavor Flav doing introducing this film? So, I am sitting there on my couch, ready to start the film, when suddenly there is a voice from the past spelling out the studio that made this film, then he acknowledges himself. That did not build for a strong remaining of the story. Again, I felt that Lee was going for money on this film instead of actual talent. Perhaps that is how he could afford both Denzel and Wesley in the same movie without any explosions.<br /><br />There were two great scenes in this film that made it worth watching through to the end. Don't get me wrong, this was a very bad movie, but there is always a diamond in every alleyway. The scene when Bleek accidentally forgets which woman he is with was mesmerizing. He continually went back and forth, weaving truth to confusion in a way that proved that Lee was actually behind the camera. It was a visionary scene that was probably lost in the shuffle due to the remaining poor scenes. The other scene that was worth watching was the way that Lee introduced and ended the film. By keeping the same pacing and direction, he was able to bring this tragic character around full circle and give him the chance to change his life. Other than these two moments, the rest of the film was pure rubbish, not worth viewing unless you are about to go blind.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****

This is a very strange HK film in many ways. First, many of the action sequences really aren't that much fun. The very first gun battle the occurs in the film was just silly. Not cool silly, or even funny silly, but just silly. That's not to say there aren't some great action scenes, but most simply don't come up to the level of some of the other films I have seen. The opposite side is that this film actually has CHARACTERS, not just people. All of the main characters are interesting (except for the head bad guy, who is flat as a billiard table) and most are fairly well acted. All the protagonists in this film are just fun to watch. The dialogue is quite witty, and doesn't seem to lose much in translation. This film is worth seeing, but I hope that uninitiated American audiences don't think this is the best HK has to offer.

Wow. this movie is the voice of a climbing generation. Director Sam Keith takes us to the darkest depths of Man's soul where we find love, life, and top-roping. World-weary Telly (Leo Fitzpatrick) follows his heart and his anchors through a cerebral journey to find sanity in a post-apocalyptic Colorado. Instead, Telly meets confrontation in Don (Jason Bortz), the embodiment of machismo and a zeitgeist of humanities foibles. The epic film comes to a climbax at a gut-wrenching top-roping competition that will make even the strongest willed viewers squeamish at the dizzying heights.<br /><br />This movie has it all: Top-roping outside, Top-roping in the gym, Cut-off shorts and sleeveless flannel shirts, Awesome climbing footage (some so good, you see it 2 or 3 times!), Bear and snake attacks.<br /><br />I gave the movie 8 out of 10 because I wanted to see the romance develop a bit more. It seemed as if the film was leading up to a spicy, top-roped sex scene between Telly and his new lover, but alas, it wouldn't fit into the already jam-packed hour and a half thrill ride.<br /><br />Fans of Cliffhanger and Mission Impossible II will find this flick to be a diamond in the rough. Overall, if you are ready to challenge your world view on humanity and climbing, this is the film for you!!!1

Disappointing and irritating. The screenwriter has no true understanding of human nature but instead strings together clichés in a disjointed fashion. Character is not explored in depth. These are puppets plunked down in a plot he openly confesses needed a dramatic element, the mother's affair with her daughter's lover. <br /><br />Anne Reid gives an excellent performance in spite of being given some peculiar situations and lines, such standing passively to allow her angry daughter to slug her in the eye. The script portrays Darren (Daniel Craig) as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde without any hints about why, except that he snorts cocaine before the big scene. <br /><br />A mature writer could have done so much more with this topic.

A ham actor without a penny. Who better than Michael Caine to play such a character? He is totally and utterly hilarious but, as in most of Caine's performances, he goes for it for real. The film seems to be a showcase of Dylan Moran and he's splendiferous in his double act with Caine. This, however, is where the script falters. Moran's impersonations should have been incorporated in a rather more organic way. They are too much of an act on their own and makes the potential plausibility of the plot fly out of the window. Never mind. Get it if you can find it. There is enough in it to make it a pleasurable journey.

I saw the movie as a child when it was released in the theater and it was so bad that it became the makings of a family joke. If the ranking had a zero, this movie would get it. The dinosaurs were awful. The storyline was ridiculous. The acting really doesn't qualify to be called acting. The only reason I even remember the name of the movie so well is because my family still talks about how BAD it really was.

I was @ 13 yrs of age when I saw this greatly underappreciated film at The ADAMS theatre in Newark, NJ, I purchased the Program, and later bought the soundtrack... still have both.... I am now 55 + yrs.. and have not seen it since (possibly once on network TV, in 1960's???) One of the greatest casts ever assembled, great score and production , please let another generation see this great film... It was my introduction to opera, and aided with my understanding of Tolerance.. Please family of Gerswhins or Premingers, release this classic soon !!

Michelle Rodriguez is a well-built high-school senior who discovers that she has a powerful punch and begins amateur training at a Brooklyn gym. Santiago Douglas is a a handsome young man, barely older than she, who also trains there. They meet after class, so to speak, and feel attracted to each other. No sex. Santiago has been instructed to save it for his next bout.<br /><br />Both are participants in a "gender-blind" athletic program that makes no distinctions between males and females, a misguided attempt to level the athletic playing field.<br /><br />A conservative radio commentator recently announced -- and I swear I'm not making this up -- "Let's face it; the president is black." I'm here to make an equally perspicacious observation -- "Men and women are different." Now, in 99 cases out of 100, this needn't make any difference in physical performance. But in the top one percent -- trained athletes whose skills have been honed to a fine edge -- men generally have the advantage. With their narrow hips they can run faster. And they have greater muscle mass and upper torso strength. These differences in body build make it possible for women to give birth and raise children and for men to catch and kill food for them. This sexual bifurcation is the result of the perfectly normal process of natural selection. Without it, there might not be any humans at all. And that, boys and girls, is why they have men's events and women's events at the Olympics. I speak to you as your anthropologist. That will be ten cents, PayPal preferred.<br /><br />That's why I called this gender-blind program misguided. As talented a boxer as Rodrigues is, as she approaches the zenith of the game, she will eventually lose to a male.<br /><br />That's where the complication arises in this movie. Rodrigues is finally matched against her boy friend, Douglas. Neither wants to loose any anger on the other, not to mention roundhouse rights, but the pride of both is at stake, and the pride is both personal and gender related. Douglas refuses to fight a woman in the ring. And Rodriguez is offended by what she sees as his patronizing attitude. It ends happily.<br /><br />I wasn't really expecting much from the film. I thought it would be a rip off of Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" until I discovered that this was released years earlier. And I'd never heard of the director or of any of the performers. That sort of obscurity generally augers ill -- made-for-television weepers and so forth.<br /><br />But I was surprised at how neatly this is put together. The total absence of bathos left me open mouthed. So did the minimal use of boxing clichés -- the frayed ropes, the blood, the cutting of the swollen eye, the battered post-bout faces, the fat and sweaty onlooker shouting "Kill him!", the slow motion landing of glove on nose, the spray of sweat from the mauled head, the heroic music signaling the long-awaited apotheosis of the victor. None of that here -- well, almost none. The whole plot could be considered formulaic. Tough kid finds outlet in the ring, etc.<br /><br />The feeling you're left with is that this is probably pretty much what these amateur contests are like. Different from those we see on TV and in ordinary movies. No bells ring, for instance, Instead a dancing and observant referee yells "Stop!" And "Box!" The contestants wear head gear. The gym is populated not by a crowd of cheering spectators, but only by a handful of people who have some particular interest in the goings on. It's a clean movie, despite the rather grim setting and the unhappy family dynamics.<br /><br />Michelle Rodriguez can look pretty mean, what with her muscular bulk and her eyes glowing under her lowered brow, but once you get used to the idea that this is a girl who can beat you to a pulp anytime she wants, and once you hear the feminine contours of her supersegmentals, she ain't bad. (A scene in which she battles her father to the floor is overdoing it.) It was a little hard to understand Douglas's restraint when Rodriguez crawls all over him in bed. The director, Karyn Kusama, has chosen her talent carefully.<br /><br />Shows what you can do with some talent, imagination, and a modicum of money. There ought to be more films like it. Take one of those multi-billion dollar blockbusters full of dinosaurs or space ships and spread the generosity around a little.

"While traveling in the mountains, a man is attached by a mysterious creature that promptly departs, leaving no trace of its presence. Unbeknownst to the man, he has been attacked by a werewolf and now he's inherited the curse associated with such creatures. Now our hero must race against time to rid himself of this dreadful affliction before the next full moon," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Horrifically re-produced from the original Spanish, "The Fury of the Wolf Man" loses whatever charms it may have possessed in its original form. Lycanthropic Paul Naschy's werewolf characterization is uneven and ineffectual. Dominatrix scientist Perla Cristal and sexy assistant Verónica Luján never get close enough to truly titillate. The often incoherent storyline isn't even ghoulishly amusing.

Miles O'keefe stars as Ator, a loin-clothed hero who resembles a Chippendale's dancer. The Conan-wannabe must do battle with an evil guy in a Cher wig, and protect the Earth from the Geometric Nucleus, a sort of primitive atomic bomb. Watch closely for visible sunglasses and tire-tracks. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of it under the title CAVE DWELLERS.

I have been an avid Jane Austen fan for many years. I had never seen this adaptation, so when I had heard of it, I came here and read all the excellent reviews. On that basis I eagerly ordered it from Netflix. What a cruel disappointment! They have taken one of the most subtle and bright comic novels and made it dull. Each character seems to have been dealt a single facial expression, a single tone upon which to base their flat characters. Although this adaptation seems to have used every word that Jane Austen wrote, they appear to have been passed around to characters in a random fashion. Even though it was done as a miniseries, this adaptation manages to confuse and feel as rushed as if it had been done as a movie of the week.<br /><br />Mr. Bennett too harsh, Mrs. Bennet just a chattering chipmunk, Mr. Darcy as lifeless as a nutcracker, the Bennett girls almost indistinguishable and Mr. Wickham a man who no one would look twice at - hardly the appealing cad! I'm quite put out!

I liked this movie. I'm not a big horror movie buff so i couldn't comment on similarities between this and other movies of this genre, but i found this movie quite captivating. the story line, albeit a little obvious, had some genuinely scary/tense moments and the acting (particually of the lead female role) wasn't bad in anyway<br /><br />Overall i'm a little surprised at the low rating this movie has gotten. I watch a lot of movies (working in a video store tends to help) and this really isn't as bad as people seem to think. I do have some criticism though. The final call from the cop was terrible, almost overacted, the dead girl in the bathroom looked liked she was having a little sleep (probably from the amount of tequila she mentioned she drank) and the children's reaction to what was happening instilled in me the hope that they were ultimately killed <br /><br />hope this helps some people

Hey look, you don't watch this movie to change your life! But if you are female especially and have always had a little thing for Richard Gere; this movie is right up your street. Diane Lane and Richard Gere have on screen chemistry going way back. 'Nights in Rodanthe' is not a Oscar winner movie and it will probably be forgotten sooner rather than later but if you want an atmospheric, beautifully shot love story between MIDDLE AGED good looking people (they don't make your stomach turn and even when Gere is 'on top' he does not look too jowly) then this is the movie for you. I loved the theme of the story and it was quite relevant in many ways. Of course the whole thing was presented in a superficial way, glossed over and not really dealt with.....I mean I would have liked to know more about the father/son relationship between Gere and James Franco, but the story was really about the idea that a great love can CHANGE you for the better; whether it is a lover, a child, a friend etc. The theme of the film is about love and its mysterious ways. I was kind of surprised that James Franco took such a small part in this film but he is always good even for a few minutes screen time. I really liked this film because it was moving and sweet.

Consider for a moment what it must be like to be Uwe Boll. Somewhere, perhaps in those places that Jack Nicholson said 'you don't talk about at parties', Boll knows that David Lean had head lice as a child that had more talent for film making than him. Gore Whores, metal-heads and the socially dysfunctional may bump into him on the circuit and tell him otherwise but general audiences find the Teutonic helmsman's output so bereft of originality, wit or imagination that he's become the internet's bogeyman – an online discursive synonym for photochemical excrement. Boll does his best to ride over these naysayers, exploiting tax credits available in Germany and Canada to keep working and raising money from a network of dentists as Zero Mostel did with old ladies in The Producers. The difference being that Mostel's character knew he was making bowel fill. Maybe Uwe knows it too.<br /><br />Such is the level of hostility toward each new 'Bollbuster' that IMDb patrons sabotage their ratings by voting 1 before they've seen it. Boll's attempts at silencing his critics by challenging them to a boxing match and knocking them out just made them more determined. Indeed he's probably the only filmmaker that's boosted thesaurus sales as critics search for inventive ways of describing garbage.<br /><br />This onslaught has made Uwe a very thick skinned man, so much so that he must feel like he's wrapped in a carpet, but one who feels as if he's bullied by the entire world. Like most people in that situation he lashes out, determined to upset as many people as possible with the memory of a tearful evening holding Variety's review of House of the Dead, never too far from the surface. This 'I know you are but what am I' strategy for reclaiming the initiative produced the blunt satire of Postal, which attempted to napalm the dissenters with jokes about 9/11, Christian fundamentalism, Jihad, Nazism and paedophilia. Such a litany of invective requires a satirist with the mind of Peter Cook and the visual imagination of Chris Morris but the closest Boll gets to either man is the o in their surname.<br /><br />In Seed, shot back to back with the aforementioned game adaptation, Boll is back with a story about a sadistic serial murderer (is there any other kind?) who gets the chair only for two attempts to fail in permanently curtailing all signs of life. Mindful of the fictional law that says anyone still alive after 3 attempts must go free, though if you'd been fried with that much electricity why would you want to, they pronounce him legally dead and bury him, only for the disgruntled killer to resurface and begin a whirlwind tour of his gaolers.<br /><br />Boll begins his 'exploration of nihilistic rage' with Seed watching footage of animals being tortured for experimental purposes. From there we're treated to the killer's stock in trade – kidnapping dogs, babies and grown women and allowing them to starve to death on camera only to become maggot food. We're invited to reflect on what a depraved race of amoral meat sacks we all are – our inhumanity to each other and our fellow creatures acting as a lighting rod that acts as a catalyst for the most disgusting vestiges of the human condition. Yes, we're worthless, gormless sadists and worse than that, we won't give Uwe a good rating on the IMDb. In short, humanity is bunk.<br /><br />Of course you might think that Uwe relies on our worst excesses for his livelihood and with that in mind it's a bit of a bipolar piece, on one hand hating its audience and positively basting itself in the sour milk of human kindness – the milk that poor old Boll has had to drink for so long, while simultaneously whipping out its member and inviting those with a pornographic lust for on screen depravity to marvel at its sheer arse splitting girth.<br /><br />The result says nothing about society and its discontents, more the corrosive effect bad press is having on its director. Poor Uwe is obviously a very angry man – one scene in which a poor woman gets her brains hammered to a pulp while tied to a chair, no doubt a surrogate for his own fantasy's about dispatching various web critics. That it's there but takes an avant-garde approach by failing to be attached to any kind of narrative thread, shows that Boll is a pornographer whose happy to engage with the blood lust of his audience and knows that plot is surplus to requirements. He's made a film which is competently shot but utterly desolate. "I wanted to make a horror movie that was no fun" Boll told the audience at the film's world premiere and he has, on that flimsy manifesto, succeeded but if this was supposed to convince the director's detractors that he was a serious genre filmmaker, he'll need something genuine to say as well as a better, more original way of saying it.

In the "goofs" section for this film there's a comment to the effect that there is a mistake in continuity where Auguste's car is seen to be parked in a different place from that seen in a previous shot in the same scene. This is incorrect. One of the views is from Auguste's flat, the other is from Valentiné's flat across the street. The whole purpose of this segment is to show how Valentiné and Auguste - who may be made for each other - almost cross paths (as happens several other times) but never quite do so, until circumstances throw them together on the ferry at the end of the film. (And here there is the implication that Joseph has manipulated things so that Auguste is on that ferry, having inspected Valentiné's ticket to see which sailing she is booked on.)

Although it has been 2 years, I still remember the complete waste that comprises the entire plot of the movie. Unfortunately, I came across this movie after my friends and I selected it while browsing through the new releases at Blockbuster. We decided to pick the movie because it was the only one we all had not seen and it sounded like it may be enjoyable. Although it has been quite some time since I viewed the movie, I still remember the lack of plot (seriously, there is no true plot), and complete waste of time that was spent watching the movie. If you are in the video store and this film catches your eye, walk on and find a better movie. If you did end up seeing this movie, I understand your pain :)

The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.

I've seen the Thin Man series -- Powell and Loy are definitely great, but there is something awfully sweet about Powell and Arthur's chemistry in this flick. Jean Arthur SHINES when she looks at Powell. There is an unmistakable undercurrent buzzing between them. This film may not have the wit of the Thin Man series, but undeniably makes up for it in charm. While I watched it, I thought for sure Powell was carrying on an off-screen affair with Arthur. My friends thought the same. This is one film where I wish I could step back in time (to schmooze and lock lips with Powell!) There seems to be no end to his lovable playful smirks! Powell's character, Lawrence Bradford, is probably the closest thing to the "perfect man." Okay, this is sounding way too gushy, but I can't help myself.

The various nudity scenes that other reviewers referred to are poorly done and a body double was obviously used. If Ms. Pacula was reluctant to do the scenes herself perhaps she should have turned down the role offer.<br /><br />Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing....

I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 1982 & loved it then. About 4 years later I had the privilege of seeing Luciano Pavarotti sing at the Metropolitan Opera house in New York (in Tosca) so seeing the ending of this film reminds me very much of that great night. What's not to like about this film? The music is brilliant and Pavarotti (Fini) was at his best and still looked great. The story is actually very funny in parts & the 'food fight' scene is still one of the funniest I have ever seen. The hot air balloon flight over the Napa valley was beautiful & so was the song he sang "If we were in love" (one of the few times Pavarotti sang in English). And hearing the duet of Santa Lucia gorgeous. Get real folks, this was a film about an opera singer called Georgio Fini who just happened to be played by Pavarotti. Kathryn Harrold & Eddie Albert were excellent in their supporting roles.<br /><br />I am VERY glad that I still have this almost worn out VHS tape of this movie but I would love this to be released on DVD especially now that Pavarotti is no longer with us because I think this includes the best performance of Nessun Dorma sung by him still on film today!

I must say, I found this movie very disappointing. Yes, I know Maltin gave it 3 1/2 and others think very highly of it. But, well, the opera sequences were god-awful. I take it Jeannete MacDonald is an acquired taste. Yes, in the short sequences I have seen her with Nelson Eddy, she is immensely preferable to him. But on her own...God, I dislike opera and despise operetta, and she is basically intolerable. At one point I had to cover my ears. Gable is just OK, and Tracy is thrown away. The plot is annoying in the JM never simply tells Gable she loves him and the opera and why can't she do both? Instead she suffers silently (or not so) with the compromises she makes. The supporting cast is distinctly unmemorable. Besides the star three and Jack Holt (and I suppose his mother), they all are just background and forgettable. The EQ sequence is the only thing that saves the movie. And just. Yes, it is fairly spectacular and moving. But the "oh God is great" seems very contrived. I immensely prefer "In Old Chicago" as far as old time disaster spectaculars go. Spare yourself on this one.

this film sucks a big one. so many holes in the plot. if the devil is invincible, why does he require the protection of arnies bodyguards? I couldn't fathom why arnie didn't turn up for work for several days and then suddenly appears, takes their entire armoury and disappears again!! Nice work if you can get it. It's sad that the last 1/2 hour has to result in the standard arnie 'uzi 9mm' finale. Arnies interpretation of a depressed cop is to bow his head and sniff. i thought he had a bad cold for most of the film. Dreadfully scripted, Arnie is called 'buddy', 'dude' etc for 95% of the film and then suddenly we hear him being called by his real name of Jericho Cane (where do they get these names from??). The ending is so twee you'd better get the barf bag ready. Shame that Gladiator pulled off the same ending with 100% more class.<br /><br />

Mona the vagabond lives on the fringes of French society, in a life without meaning, purpose or direction.<br /><br />I watched this because of all the stellar reviews, but I'm afraid I must have missed something. The character of Mona has little or no personality while drifting through life being rude to people, getting high and contributing nothing to anyone's life. She's not interesting or exciting. She's just useless.<br /><br />I've seen and known enough people like that: there is no secret meaning to what they're doing. They are just lazy bums. I wouldn't want Mona anywhere near me, as she tends to steal anything that isn't nailed down and leave her friends in the lurch. Sure she's enigmatic - because there isn't anything to her. Lots of junkies, winos and bums I've seen are enigmatic; I wouldn't want to see a film about them either.<br /><br />Possibly there is something there that I totally missed. Otherwise I'm assuming that all the reviews are from people who assume anything done by a French female director is high art.

I would most definitely have to say that this is the most terrible movie I have ever seen. It's not just the actors that are bad, but also the fact that the camera person taped the wall and the clocks for about 5 minutes at a time. Anyone that likes this must be crazy! THIS MOVIE IS A WASTE OF TIME

Istanbul is a big , crowded city between Europe and Asia.Too many types of people living together there for hundred years.In this documentary movie you can see how music can give description about the culture of the owner race.<br /><br />You would be able to hear too many types of music including rock , hip-hop , arabesque , alternative and more. Some of the musicians are famous in Turkey , some of them are famous also in Europe. The rest are just street musicians. Their music tell viewers , different faces of a city. <br /><br />Impressive !

Pretty terrible, but not entirely unwatchable. Another review mentioned "predictable" - and that's almost an understatement. You can make a game out of guessing what the next line will be. Every character is either stereotype or archetypical. The good guy in a bad situation, the struggle between older and younger priest on acceptance and discipline, the repressed, sexually/emotionally deprived woman returning to the small town after failing in the big city, engaged to the hotheaded, feeble minded beau from youth, the unredeemable bad guys, two "lost boys" looking for a sense of family - they're all here, and none of them with even the remotest spin of something new. From the first few minutes you can figure out exactly what will happen by film's end. The story isn't entirely lame, but direction, acting (even from a cast with some talent) everything is thrown together without skill. As to the storyline, we've all seen it before in a movie called "Sister Act." This is also one of those films where inattention to small details show up in an even more glaring light. (As example: the nurse and our hero drive into town but park several blocks away from their destinations (post office and hardware store) - yet both walk across empty parking lots for no apparent reason. Or the passage of morning to night during a scene that seemingly should occur in no more than half an hour. The movie is filled with that kind of stuff and then tags on an improbable denouement.

This film was a yawn from titles to credits, it's boring to the point of tedium and the acting is wooden and stilted! Admittedly this was director Richard Jobson directing debut, but who on earth green-lit a script as poorly developed as this one? Looks like another money down the drain government project (Scottish Screen are credited surprise, surprise). I nearly fell asleep three times and my review will unfortunately have to be more restrained than this one. Please, please mister Jobson what ever you've been doing prior to directing this sedative of a film, go back to it!

I simply love this movie. It is a perfect example of the well-rounded surprising stories that come out of Asian cinema. There was a recent Hollywood remake of this movie, with Richard Gere and the simply awful Jennifer Lopez. Please do not confuse the two movies. The original Japanese film is touching, subtle and wonderfully acted. The Hollywood version is the exact opposite. I was aghast when I first saw the trailer for the remade US Version and who was starring in it. It's typical Hollywood unoriginal crass commercialism at it's worst. The remake cements the argument that some foreign films can never be improved upon. The ONLY reason the original film did not become more widely viewed is the US audience's aversion to subtitles.<br /><br />One of the main reasons this movie would never work in an American telling is that the reserved, ultra socially conservative character of the public Japanese persona is at issue in this movie. Certainly the main character awakens to a more full understanding of living a vivacious life through dance, but half of the movie's tension comes from the stereotypes and ridicule ballroom dancers face in Japan.<br /><br />Please try to see this movie in it's original form, not the terrible full screen. And please DO skip the US remake....it's a shallow travesty in comparison to the original Japanese movie.<br /><br />Yes, I know the "original" movie is much older, and this is simply a Japanese take on the story, but the only two people are likely to see any time soon are this one and the new US remake.<br /><br />Speaking of foreign films, I'll make a few quick recommendations: 1.Monsoon Wedding-I list this first for a reason, outstanding film! 2.Johnny Stechino-Very funny Italian mistaken identity flic! 3.Shiri-A Korean action pic that mixes both Asian flare & US style plot 4.Run Lola Run-A German film that integrates it's techno score ingeniously.<br /><br />Well, just a quick list anyway :-)

Firstly, this movie works in the fact that it is disturbing. I really did not like seeing all these scenes where people get cut up alive, etc. The weirdly erotic introduction gives one a sense of necrophiliactic wonder. It is somewhat... distastefull to me personally. But the movie really works in that respect, and it is suppposed to be scary, so I give it credit for that. Yup, a few points there for those scalpels and....well, damned disturbing idea of getting disected alive.<br /><br />But what this movie lacks is an interesting plot, characterization, or real surprises. The whole teen-flick horror genre usually goes in a very simple, predictable way. Lots of 'tense' moments, creepy guys who are insane, and the big question of all: is the boyfriend the murderer? This movie fits into the category of "Scream" and countless others which have spawned over the 90s. Well, I won't spoil it for you, but it's not exactly interesting who is the killer. We find out who it is half way through... and from there on, the movie drudges on, trying to fill in some time... rather boringly to say the least. I was looking at the clock a bit on this movie.<br /><br />The lead actress is great, as usual, but the carboard acting box she is placed into makes one groan in pain... the college girl who is a detective who everyone thinks is insane, but she is the one who really knows whats going on. And the cops? Ahhh, they just laugh and eat donuts. Very predictable, flat, disturbing at times, and most of all, boring and dull... It's like an American film company took a flight to Germany to shoot a movie to make it foreign..... hmmm..... or did they?<br /><br />

I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.<br /><br />I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).<br /><br />I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Anyone who loves the Rheostatics' music is going to enjoy this film. I have some minor complaints, mainly about pacing and the casting of certain actors (not Maury) who aren't really convincing in their roles, but I don't have time write a detailed review. I just want to warn anyone who has seen this film or plans to watch this film as presented CBC television in Canada: The version that airs are the CBC is like the Reader's Digest version of WHALE MUSIC---don't watch it. It cuts out entire scenes and subplots (if you can them that) from the film. The CBC, which presents most of films untouched, took half the guts out of WHALE MUSIC. I don't know why. It's horrible what they did to the film. Rent the video or watch it in a theatre, but DON'T watch it on CBC television.

One commenter said if you like Austin Powers you will like this movie. I liked Autin Powers and was disappointed with this movie. The film works hard, maybe too hard for laughs. Maybe it was that all the villains in this movie were shouting as if the shouting in itself is suppose to be funny. I get where they were trying to go with this flick. A cross between Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel but it just doesn't work. Austin Powers if silly but intelligent, Zorro the Gay Blade lacks the savvy of Austin Powers, The Big Lebowski or Kingpin.<br /><br />I kept waiting for a laugh and while waiting found myself amazed that someone actually got paid for the script. My 15 year daughter also thought the movie was flat. My 17 year old who selected this flick on it's title, walked out after 20 minutes.<br /><br />It seems many people on IMDb liked this film, but for me it lacked the good timing or jokes of a good comedy.

1) If you want to make a movie that deals with social realism it's quite important that the audience identify with the characters that are being portrayed. 2) The audience can't identify with characters that are highly stereotyped or with situations that are to obvious. 3) If you got a bad actor then you can't build any character. Anyway, even if you got nice actors their job will result ridiculous if you force them to speak with a fictitious Andalusian accent.<br /><br />Jesús Ponce ignores those 3 points and also makes some cheap jokes that are completely out of place. His script is so predictable: a woman comes out of prison, she meets his old junkie boyfriend, life's tough, etc. Whatever, the fact that the story is everything but original wouldn't be that bad if only Ponce weren't a complete incompetent writing and filming.<br /><br />I wonder how long will they keep giving money from our taxes to make movies such as this one.<br /><br />*My rate: 3/10

I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast.

Terry Gilliam traveled again to the future (he had already done it in "Brazil") to tell this story about a virus that's destroying the human race.<br /><br />The script is totally crazy with some easy tricks on it but it's quite entertaining and Gilliam proves that he's got imagination (the futuristic scenes are just great). As for the cast, Bruce Willis and the beautiful Madeleine Stowe (whatever happened to her??) are just OK, but Brad Pitt is so annoying, whenever he plays roles that are out of his hand he results so forced and he's not credible at all. He should just play good-looking successful young men.<br /><br />*My rate: 7/10

Jennifer Montgomery's "Art for Teachers of Children" is a stunning, disturbing masterpiece. Montgomery's gritty camerawork and cinematography coupled with the brilliantly unemotional performances she evokes from her cast heighten the sense of shocking, raw realism in this autobiographical story of a 14-year-old Jennifer's seduction of her married boarding-school guidance counselor. The scenes between the amazingly uncanny actress playing Jennifer (Caitlin Grace McDonnell) and Jennifer's mother (actually voiced by Ruth Montgomery) on the phone are some of the most intriguing and powerful I've ever seen captured on film. The lesson ultimately learned here? "There's nothing more dangerous than a boring man who creates bad art." Well, I would highly recommend this remarkable piece of "Art" for anyone interested in thought-provoking independent cinema.

The plot is somewhat original, and all the actors did their job pretty well. There is a plenty of comic relief, too. Some things do not make a lot of sense (e.g. the first "chase" scene, why would the heroine not just hide somewhere and wait until the baddies leave?). The Russians actually speak Russian without accent, but the cars are extremely strange, with models spanning like 50 years, and so the place seems weirdly out of time. Overall, if you like thrillers you will probably like this one as well.

I remember this movie getting a lot of flak from reviewers when it was new. Letterman and Leno themselves had objections. Letterman called it (paraphrasing) the biggest waste of film he'd ever seen, and Leno objected to the simpleton portrayal of himself. But Letterman had John Michael Higgins as a guest on his show so it seems he didn't take anything too personally. A DVD re-release, with opinions and such from those involved, could be interesting, though I suspect the days when late night talkshow wars captivated the nation are gone and not returning soon.<br /><br />I preferred the Letterman impersonation to the Leno, but could never buy in to either. They never rose above caricature, and I never simply accepted them as actors. For comparison: Paul Sorvino as Kissinger in Oliver Stone's "Nixon" comes to mind as an impersonation which may have seemed laughable in the first few moments but which seemed at least plausible after the first moments of amusement wore off.<br /><br />The highlight of the show for me was Treat Williams as Michael Ovitz. Williams' speech to Letterman was not as great as but reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's entrance (and quick exit) as Blake in Glengerry Glen Ross.<br /><br />They could have done more with Johnny's role in all this. I know he was mostly uninvolved in the events portrayed in this movie, and most audiences will be familiar with his reputation such that Johnny Carson needs no introduction. But more context about why Dave and Jay and all comedians revere Johnny would have given this flick the substance it lacks in being a gossip film.<br /><br />Guess I should read the book...<br /><br />Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson, unfortunately, came across as nothing more than Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson.<br /><br />I tell you what, after watching this movie, then watching either the Letterman or Leno show, all I want to do is crack open my Johnny Carson DVDs and see the real thing.

After having watched Koyaanisqatsi two or three dozen times and loving every second of it, I finally had a chance to see it's sequel Life In Transformation. I was truly dissappointed as it did not nearly stand up to the high standards of the first. 90 minutes of people with baskets on their head is not my idea of a good movie. The Philip Glass score for this one had neither the beauty nor the correlating strength of the first. Compared with Koyaanisqatsi this movie seemed slow and pointless. A watered down version of Baraka, which is the same idea but done better. I truly hope the third movie in this series will not follow the example of this waste.

Once again, we are fortunate to see a gorgeous opening scene where the artists' work has been fully restored and we see this old-time grocery store on a street corner with the snow gently falling. Inside are the rich colors of all the merchandise, from produce to canned and boxed goods to medicine to candy, etc.<br /><br />In essence, this is a story of those goods "coming to life," such as the animals on the labels of items, or a pie, or even a pack of cigarettes.<br /><br />The whole "show" is narrated by "Jack Bunny," a Jack Benny impersonator, with music from conductor Leopold Stokowski, who was in so many Looney Tunes animated shorts I have lost count. A lot of the humor is topical, so it pays to know who "Little Egypt" and other characters. The Busby Berkeley-type "aqua" number with bathing suited-sardines coming out of the can, and the tomato can-can dance were both clever! <br /><br />All of the above, and more, was in the first half of this slightly longer-than-normal length cartoon. The second half was about a King Kong-type which escapes from the "Animal Crackers" box and terrorizes everyone. That part was not much, and ended on a somewhat stupid note. So..... an "A" for the first half, a "D" for the second, making it about a C-plus or B-minus overall.

I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a "B" movie - it's a made for TV "B" movie.

Boogie Nights is one of the best films to come out of the 90's and I'd go so far as to say it should be in the IMDb top 250. I can actually understand why many would dislike it, due to the subject matter. I personally feel however as many do, judging from the aclaim this film's received by viewers and critics that it's topnotch film making.<br /><br />The direction and acting in this film surpass good and reach the level of brilliance.There is not one scene in this movie that isn't amazing. The individual characters reach out and touch you. Given that this is a movie about the porn industry, one wouldn't imagine the sex scenes could be handled with such sensitivity but they are. The direction is among the best I've ever seen-and I've seen a lot of films.<br /><br />The film isn't about one particular personal individual's story, it's about many.It's a character study about people who have many layers to them and who maybe in an industry most would find alien but who still dream the same dreams and have both bad and good to them. Boogie Nights draws you into their story from the beginning, and though the film is long(I believe almost 3 hours) you honestly don't even notice. And when it ends you kind of don't want it to....<br /><br />I'm not easy to impress, meaning there aren't many movies I'd give a 10 of 10 rating to but this is one. Beyond the multiple character study, is the use of music in the film. I have never, in all my years of seeing movies seen music tell a story as well as in this movie.There was such flawlessness to it, you know it's not something your gonna see everyday.<br /><br />Burt reynold's performance was perhaps the best I've ever seen him do, and Mark Wahlberg is incredible(I'm astounded there are still people saying he doesn't act well. I don't know how anyone viewing this could possibly think that)but the person who really surprised me was Heather Grahem(Rollergirl) who is absolutely fantastic in her role, in particular the one memorable scene with Burt Reynolds in the Limo, towards the end.<br /><br />Again, I'll echo other IMDb reviewers in saying this movie is not for everybody. But I still think this was topnotch.10 of 10.

This is a delightful gem of a movie, unfortunately pigeon-holed as "just for kids." The plot revolves around a young man, Roy Eberhardt, newly arrived in southwest Florida from the Montana mountains. Trying to fit in with the other kids at his middle school, Roy discovers a brother-sister team trying to protect endangered burrowing owls at an illegal construction site. Look for Carl Hiassen, the author of the book upon which this movie is based, as the male secretary to the evil boss at corporate headquarters. Writer/director Wil Shriner is also the clerk at the Public Records Office where the intrepid teen-detectives discover that the incriminating Environmental Impact Report is missing. Luke Wilson nearly steals all the crucial scenes from the charming teen actors who have most of the best lines. Wilson is the bumbling police officer, in his three-wheeled electric police cart complete with blue light and funky siren. As Officer Dave, he tries so hard to do well, but usually ends up falling in the muck, literally! Several times! Jimmy Buffet is pretty low key as the tacitly supportive science teacher. But, young actors Logan Lerman (Roy), Brie Larson (Beatrice the Bear), and Cody Linley (Mullet Fingers) are superb as the teens who finally put Officer Dave on the right track, following the paper trail left by the evil corporate boss. I hope you come away from this movie feeling as good as I did. Just plain fun! One small complaint, though. I hope all non-Floridians realize that not everyone from Florida is as surly to newcomers as depicted in this film. We're really a friendly bunch! Just ask Carl Hiassen and Jimmy Buffet!!

If the answer to this question is yes, then you should enjoy this excellent movie. I've just seen it a couple of hours ago here in Paris (where the action of the movie takes place)and I can still feel the huge trauma I received in the back of my eyes...What a visual shock ! I've never seen such a beautiful black&white photo and such a drastic change in the way of doing animated movies. I strongly believe there will a before and after "Renaissance", similarly to what we saw with Pixar movies or the Akira and GhostInTheShell experiences. This is a real breakthrough in the small world of animated movies and I hope this french initiative (a small unknown french studio with a few young folks who had a dream named "Renaissance"...) will receive the success and recognition it deserves. Vive la France !

Six out of seven people who took the time to comment on this movie have very positive responses. The one negative review happens to reside (or did) on the first page of the movie's location in the IMDb.<br /><br />I found "What Alice Found" to be one of the best movies almost no one's heard of that I have seen this year. It's 6.4 rating is misleading and may be more a function of the difficult subject matter than the quality of the movie. Who would think that a movie purportedly about truck stop prostitution would be worth seeing? Guess again.<br /><br />For me, "Alice" was a positively gripping psychological thriller. I was virtually on the edge of my seat the entire time. It's a very credible story with a realistic script and is very well cast. In a fairer world, actress Judith Ivey would win awards for keeping you guessing whether she was good or evil.<br /><br />Ignore the rating and see this terrific movie. (And by the way, I wish there was a soundtrack album.)

I couldn't help but laugh when I saw what the public could be made to think was email back in 1996. Apparently email is an interactive discussion (similar to a chat) with lame voice synthesis reading every comment out loud. And some of the other "tech" aspects are also laugh-out-loud funny. I'd swear the "high tech" communications centre she has actually has a few Commodore 64 monitors in it. Almost like watching the movie Hackers nowadays, I guess.<br /><br />Despite the fact that for most of the movie the lead actress carries off the illusion of being disabled, the final part of the movie has an unexplained use of her legs which somehow I can't ignore. I mean, why include something so stupid? <br /><br />Anyway, to sum up: the plot is pretty predictable, the acting bad, the killer quite guessable. But it can be amusing in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 kind of way I guess.

-only few can understand Leland's character, and to do that u most likely are inborn to see both sides of life,and to face this reality is very hard and can lead some few to bad acts(like Leland's character does)but for such sad and real reasons that his intentions were good,in the sense that the intention to save another from physical or mental(in this case)pain over long time. and it is really sad how mostly everyone in this movie makes mistakes in it, but the one character to make one through good intentions is killed by it. the lesson of this movie is for the unique person to see,realize,face and make right of the real life situation u see and to make right,or inspire one who can make right of a wrong situation. but before that...u have to see both sides of something and rationalize it for the sake of long peace,and tranquility of all human life.aka-Don't BE IGNORANT

Milos Forman's original HAIR was the perfect movie that actually revealed how life was changing in those years, not only in the USA, but especially in this country. One of the plots in the film was to be used in other films to come after Hair, for example, in American Graffitti, etc. It was an original story with a touch of generational sadness in it. The characters in the film were like lonely "cells" in a "body" that was changing all over. Overall, a very good film, perhaps a little underrated though. Annie Golden's role was minor but she acted very well. It was the film that practically launched John Savage as an actor. One of the members of the Chicago played his role well even though it was a minor role.

I love buying those cheap, lousy DVD's from Alpha Video. One day, I happened to buy this one. It's the perfect silly science fiction film of the 50's, all sexed up. Replete with unscientific EVERYTHING, scantily clad girls and plenty of melodrama, it's an enjoyable film, to those who appreciate this kind of stuff. And if you can 'suspend your disbelief' enough, you can actually get creeped out-- not just by the psychotic head or by the beating of the thing in the closet, but toward the end, with the character of 'the perfect body'. It's so . . . . what's another word for mindf***ing?

Usually I don't really like Emma Roberts so much, but after watching Nancy Drew it kind of changed my mind. The actors in the movies made the whole thing exciting and funny. Most of the time when you watch a mystery movie you can solve it before the middle of the show, but in this movie it's like you are actually there. The clues have to all fit together until you can finally understand the whole crime. I am still amazed how she found it out. The whole movie was really clever and the people who watched it with me loved the movie too. The clothes were my favorite part of the movie, it was so cute. I don't think there will be another movie like this until the sequel comes out. I give it a nine because the popular girls didn't really seem to have the part just right, but they still make me laugh. It was a really great movie and a great mystery. I definitely recommend watching it.

IMDb forces reviewers to type a certain amount of lines, but all I really want to say is -- "This is an incredible film, and you can't consider yourself a film fan without having seen it." You ought to just trust me on this one and stop reading this review and get the movie and push play. But I have to type something. So, let me point out the following: <br /><br />(1) River's Edge contains what still may well rank as Crispin Glover's all-time funniest and best performance in a film, and if you have been following Crispin Glover at all, you know that that alone justifies giving it a 10. Funny lines galore.<br /><br />(2) River's Edge contains the second-most memorable performance of Dennis Hopper's career (other than the one in Blue Velvet), and it is really excellent. Dennis Hopper is really funny.<br /><br />(3) River's Edge contains the best performance of Keanu Reeves' career, and it is excellent. It was the role he was born to play. He has plenty of good lines, but one in particular is really really funny. Listen close when his character and the step-dad are talking to one another.<br /><br />Still the best stoner film, it is much more than just that. It tends to show up in the drama sections of film-rental stores, but if this is a drama, it's the funniest drama of all time.

I've read plenty of Jane Austen in my time and approve of several cinema/TV adaptations but this one we just don't need.<br /><br />Rating is a 2 as I wouldn't say it's awful just so boring you will feel like you've wasted 90 minutes of your life. Dull script matched by even duller acting. I've heard Billie Piper is OK in Dr Who (not a fan so can't confirm) but in this she just sucks. There is absolutely no chemistry between the leads. This is Austen, it's supposed to be a romance!<br /><br />Please don't let this put you off Austen or historical dramas. There are plenty of better programmes to view.

The plot of this enjoyable MGM musical is contrived and only occasionally amusing, dealing with espionage and romance but the focus of the film is properly pointed upon the tuneful interludes showcasing the enormously talented and athletic tap dancing Eleanor Powell, abetted by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, featuring Ziggy Elman, Buddy Rich and Frank Sinatra. Red Skelton shares top billing with Powell, and he and sidekick Bert Lahr are given most of the comedic minutes, although Skelton is more effective when he, if it can be believed, performs as Powell's love interest, with Virginia O'Brien actually providing most of the film's humor as the dancer's companion. The technical brilliance of Powell is evidenced during one incredible scene within which Buddy Rich contributes his drumming skills, and which must be viewed several times in order to permit one's breathing to catch up with her precision. Director Edward Buzzell utilizes his large cast well to move the action nicely along despite the rather disjointed script with which he must deal, and permits Powell's cotangent impossibilities to rule the affair, as is appropriate.

Skippy from Family Ties goes from clean-cut to metal kid in this fairly cheesy movie. The film seems like it was made in response to all those upset parents who claimed metal music was turning their kids evil or making them kill themselves - except in this one a dead satanic metal star is trying to come back from the grave (using Skippy to help out). And while the plot is corny and cliche, the corniness (for example, an evil green fog taking off a girl's clothes)and the soundtrack are what make the movie so hilarious (and great). And of course, there's nothing like Ozzy Osbourne playing a preacher who's asking what happened to the love song :). Definitely a movie for having a few friends over for a good laugh. And while you're at it, make it a double feature with Slumber Party Massacre 2 - there's an "evil rocker" (as stated on the video box)driller killer in black leather w/fringe. A must see for cheesy movie fans.

With the little respect it deserves, I would like to state that this movie was horrible. The filmmakers had good intentions, but the overall quality of the direction and production value was obviously lacking a great deal. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a good hard laugh and then wasting two more hours of their life enduring a truly painful experience. I'm surprised I even found this movie on the $1 DVD rack where it was aptly placed. I thought maybe it was going to be good and that I might discover some amazing independent film - I was wrong. I wish I had never seen this movie. My 3-year-old cousin couldn't make a worse film. I'm glad I saw the film because I can finally tell people I've seen the worst movie ever made, and be sure of it.

EARTH (2009) ***1/2 Big screen adaptation of the BBC/Discovery Channel series "Planet Earth" offers quite a majestic sampling of nature in all its beauty with some truly jaw-dropping moments of "how the hell did they get this footage?!" while taking in the awesome scenics of animals in their natural habitats and environmental message of the circle of life can be cruel (witness a Great White Shark gulping down a walrus seal as a quick meal!) and adorable (the various babies and their 'rents). The basso profundo tones of narrator James Earl Jones solidifies its 'God's eye views' and profundity. Culled from literally hundreds of hours of footage, the only gripe comes from the fact this should have been in the IMAX format and could've even gone longer! Oh, well, there's always the next time (since Disney Studios has produced this count on a series of more to come). Dirs: Alastair Fothergill & Mark Linfield.

Going into seeing this movie I was a bit skeptical because fantasy movies are not always my cup of tea. Especially a romantic fantasy.<br /><br />Little did I know that I was in for a ride through cinematic magic. Everything in the movie from plot to dialogue to effects was very near perfection.<br /><br />Claire Danes shines like the star she is in this movie. From beginning to end you fall more and more in love with this character.<br /><br />Michelle Pfeiffer is menacing as an evil witch bent on capturing the star for eternal youth and beauty.<br /><br />Robert De Niro is a lovable character who gives the audience the greatest bit of comic relief as the movie is gaining momentum towards the climax.<br /><br />Overall this was a movie that surprised and delighted me as a movie fan. If you are looking for a fun and enjoyable movie that will be fun for the kids and adults alike, Stardust is the way to go.

Rented this tonite from my local video store. It was titled "Black Horizon." I guess someone felt this was good enough for a 2004 re-release...<br /><br />Micheal Dudikoff is unfortunetly not a ninja in this movie, one of the major flaws of this film right off the bat. Another major flaw would be that Ice-t's action scenes are stolen from other movies, particularly the first scene of his rescue, which is directly from the Wesley Snipes movie "The Art of War," with Ice-T edited in. I hope they paid for that footage.<br /><br />The plot is awful, the special effects had little effort put into them (love those wires holding them in space), the acting is wooden (also love those New York/Russian accents). Ice-T being in the movie is pointless. These guys also forgot the fact that there is no gravity in space, but I guess they weren't worried about it.<br /><br />Micheal Dudikoff should go back to doing what he's "good" at and make American Ninja 6.

As others have mentioned, all the women that go nude in this film are mostly absolutely gorgeous. The plot very ably shows the hypocrisy of the female libido. When men are around they want to be pursued, but when no "men" are around, they become the pursuers of a 14 year old boy. And the boy becomes a man really fast (we should all be so lucky at this age!). He then gets up the courage to pursue his true love.

Anyone witness to our justice system - or lack thereof will find this film truly satisfying. There weren't too many shades of gray with regard to characters or plot. Virtually every character in this film epitomized what is best and worst about our society. The popularity of this film is probably due to the fact that most of us at one time or another have had to deal with scumbags along with the namby-pamby, lily-livered, melee-mouthed bureaucrats that empower them in the name of "political correctness". <br /><br />The performances across the board were compelling. I sympathized with the rape victim - while at the same, found it gratifying to see her wipe the smug, vicious arrogance off the faces of her former attackers. In particular, I found the dyke one of the ugliest characters in all of the films I've seen, so it was nice to see her former victim shut her mouth for good. The lead rapist and psychopath was equally ugly, so it was only fitting that Dirty Harry himself offed him in a loud grotesque fashion in the end. This was the only sequel in the dirty Harry saga that equaled the first.

The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.<br /><br />Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.<br /><br />Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.<br /><br />Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?<br /><br />I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"<br /><br />I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.<br /><br />Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.<br /><br />Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half.

After Life is a Miracle, I did not expect much. It's hard to believe that these films were made by the same man as Do You Remember Dolly Bell, for instance. Zavet is two hours of silly antics with no story. The wild and unbridled humor of Underground seems to have degenerated into pathetic buffoonery here. It appears that Kusturica has been going steadily downhill since he started making life-affirming comedies, beginning with Black Cat, White Cat, which I think was great, but already had some disturbing signs of dementia. I liked his early films so much, and this is why it's especially disappointing to see something like this. Let's hope his next one will be great.

Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.<br /><br />I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.

The sun was not shining, it was too wet to play, so I went to the movies, that cold, cold, wet date day.<br /><br />"The Cat in the Hat" was the name of the flick, and when it was over, my stomach was sick.<br /><br />Mike Myers played the Cat, his humor was lame, and kids needn't see this, the humor was not tame.<br /><br />the film was like drinking milk, from a rabid cow, so it IS fun to have fun, yet the filmmakers didn't know how.<br /><br />This film, in short is atrocious. The acting was bad, the plot was tweaked too much, and the humor was surprisingly very crude.<br /><br />It starts with Conrad and Sally, A rule breaker and a future sheriff. When their Mother has to go to work, she gets Mrs. Kwan to babysit. Possibly the lone funny part in the movie is when Mrs. Kwan is watching a Taiwanese court room, a `la C-SPAN. She soon falls asleep, and here comes the Cat.<br /><br />The film starts to spiral out of control. The Cat came to try to let the kids have some fun. He's got Thing 1 and Thing 2, Who suddenly start trashing the house. He improvises a TV Infomercial, and accidentally slices his tail off. And when the Cat goes full Carmen Miranda, it's not funny. Possibly his only funny disguise is as a hippie activist. And there's a fish who tries warning the kids about the Cat.<br /><br />Too bad he didn't warn us this film was as much fun as sour milk, or chopping your tail off.<br /><br />Soon the kids are outside looking for the family dog, who has the key to a crate on his collar. If the crate is not locked soon, their house will be home to the Cat's universe. Here it gets a little more interesting, but not enough to save the film.<br /><br />The acting, overall, is horrible. Mike Meyers brings his brand of irreverent Austin Powers humor to the Cat, Saying things like "You dirty ho" and imagining himself as a woman for the rest of his life after a whack in the testicles while posing as a pinata. Spencer Breslin is great as the trouble-making Conrad, and Dakota Fanning is cute as Sally, though they alone are not enough to save this horrendous Aortic Dissection waiting to kill John Ritter(accident waiting to happen). Alec Baldwin's slick and slimey Lawrence Quinn is disgusting, ever trying to woo the kids mom, who is played by Kelly Preston. And Sean Hayes is Mr. Humberfloob, Mom's boss, and is also the voice of the fish. The latter three are also bland.<br /><br />Overall, if I were a parent I would not take my kids who are into potty humor, cause there's plenty of it and more. Save your $7.00 and see something else. As the late great Dr. Seuss once said,<br /><br />It is fun to have fun, But you have to know how. Really, Universal, stop! Theodore's already turning over in his grave.<br /><br />Like my Mom always says, "Curiousity killed the Cat".- The Cat In The Hat * out of *****

Jacknife is a masterpiece of the 80's. It's a movie that breaths through amazing acting and a very interesting directing touch. In Jacknife both lovers of European and American cinema can find things to relate on. The screenplay is very compelling and full of beautiful characters. Ed Harris is giving one of the greatest performances up to date. He portrays his alcoholic hero superbly making us feel his broken heart in each line, in each move. Robert De Niro makes us once again think of him as one of the greatest actors of all time in one of the simplest but also most realistic performances in his career. Jacknife is never getting boring as it shows its heroes clear of any typical Hollywood's typical character elements. After the war none is a hero. Everybody is a loser, and this movie is about that simple truth. None can mend up his pieces after a war, just like the heroes of this movie. Jacknife is about the diseases of the soul that war creates. Simply magnificent movie.

For me every piece of art is to be judged by these criteria: Form, Function and Meaning. Guernsey seems to be dedicated to forms: nice shots and sometimes interesting acting. The long close ups suggest a function that the viewer may fill in by himself. Because of lacking texts the story becomes a quiz. An introvert person suggests to have depth, but sometimes it turns out he has nothing to say. This film acts like an introvert person. If you have not read the synopsis you cannot see that it was the suicide (and the unanswered question Why?) that changes Anna's view on life and makes her suspicious. 'Why don't you speak to me?' asks Sebastiaan. Anna doesn't answer, she only starts looking a long time at him without saying a word. What is the function of that shot? What does it mean? My question is like Sebastiaans: What has this film to say? What is meant by this movie? The answer for me: It shows us a handful of persons with the passion of a glass of water. The story of their lives is simple and boring. Motives behind their actions are not shown. The rest is: skins, residences, landscapes. Nice and artistic done, but meaningless without having disposal of 'instructions for use'. In my opinion this film is made for fellow artists, not for the common viewer.

I just rented this movie to see Dolph Lundgren, whom I hadn't seen in any movies since Rocky IV. Unfortunately this movie was a big disappointment. The acting of all the parties was bad except for Mr. Lundgren, who was okay-ish. Kata Dobó was something nice to look at despite her ridiculous outfit and make-up.<br /><br />The plot is not at all clever, it's something that's been repeated a million times in different movies. The crooks were utterly stereotypical, and Lundgren's character hadn't any depth in it. I didn't really expect a movie masterpiece, but unfortunately this is not even decent action. Every turn in the plot is extremely predictable and the unbelievable amount of over-the-top unrealism and comic-book like characters started to annoy me strongly pretty soon.<br /><br />I would recommend this to young kids wanting some comic-like action, but only if nothing else is available.<br /><br />1/10. (I guess the current average vote of 7.0 with 6 votes must have been influenced by somebody involved in making this movie)

An excellent period murder melodrama, with Fontaine effectively playing against her earlier naive wallflower type, in a role that reportedly Olivia DeHavilland turned down. That's fine, because Fontaine is wonderful. Scripted by Charles Bennett, who had written for Hitchcock in the thirties and also later penned the excellent script for the classic British horror film Night of the Demon. The opening scene, where Ivy visits a sinister fortune teller played by the wonderful Una O'Connor (the screecher of James Whale fame), is a tour de force, and the film maintains interest throughout the numerous sinister machinations. I hope to see this film on DVD someday, but despair of that ever happening, because it seems to be an undeservedly obscure film. Fortunately I got to see it on AMC some seven or eight years ago, but have not seen since. Catch it if you can!

Let's start by the simple lines. From the viewer's side, there a couple of good "director details", some points of view at the movie scenes that are nice. The special effects are good enough, a good acting/good scenery also. But the story is way too simple. It shows how a elite Army bomb squad unit lives, acts and sometimes dies. It shows the drama of living in war. In my movie experience as a serious action movie "addicted" guy, I missed that click that gets my eyes and mind stuck on the screen. One of the things that need to be present in a movie in order to I consider it a good one is the ability of immerse the viewer in the movie reality and time. It didn't happened to me. I stayed "conscious", for the entire movie.<br /><br />Honestly speaking, I think that this movie gained its place in fame based on the "subconscious" appeal of American patriotism, a healthy and genuine feeling, but not the adequate use as a movie fame generator. More than a movie about war, it grows its popularity based on that.<br /><br />A simple thought: if this was a world war II or I movie, only changing time, with everything remained the same, would it be this awarded? Sure not. Why? Because there are great ones that elevate the bar way to high.<br /><br />Compared against its rivals in the Oscars, I don't think that all of the prizes it won are correctly awarded.

I really wanted to be able to give this film a 10. I've long thought it was my favorite of the four modern live-action Batman films to date (and maybe it still will be--I have yet to watch the Schumacher films again). I'm also starting to become concerned about whether I'm somehow subconsciously being contrarian. You see, I always liked the Schumacher films. As far as I can remember, they were either 9s or 10s to me. But the conventional wisdom is that the two Tim Burton directed films are far superior. I had serious problems with the first Burton Batman this time around--I ended up giving it a 7--and apologize as I might, I just couldn't help feel that Batman Returns just has too many small direction, plot and script problems scattered throughout to justify a 10.<br /><br />But Burton _almost_ trumps the problems with sheer force of style, and even though there are a lot of small flaws, Batman Returns is still a great film, especially if you're a Burton fan, as Batman Returns has just as much in common with The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and Edward Scissorhands (1990) as it does with anything else in the Batman universe.<br /><br />The film begins strongly, with the Cobblepots having a baby. We see their dismay--people walk out of the birthing room with horror on their faces, ready to vomit. Later, they have the baby in a small cage. Finally they take it out for an evening stroll and dump it in the Gotham City River. The baby ends up becoming Batman villain The Penguin (Danny DeVito).<br /><br />Meanwhile, Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) is the film's "evil capitalist", comparable to Grissom (Jack Palance) in Batman. He is planning on duping Gotham City in various ways, and we see him emotionally abusing his secretary, the timid Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer). When Kyle discovers one of the nefarious plots, Grissom tries to get rid of her, but she is rescued by cats, becoming Catwoman.<br /><br />While all of this is going on, The Penguin, who has long been only rumored to exist and who is thought to be dangerous, begins a scheme to be presented to the public as a good guy, despite having less than benevolent, ulterior motives.<br /><br />Before re-watching Burton's Batman films this time, I didn't remember just how little the films are about Batman (Michael Keaton). It's almost as if Burton didn't feel the character was interesting enough to focus on. The focus here is much more on the villains, especially The Penguin. Batman doesn't appear very often, especially in the beginning of the film, and surprisingly often, we're watching him watching The Penguin.<br /><br />Although some viewers necessarily count the above as a flaw, I can't say that I do, even if I'd like to know more about Batman and follow his story more. The villains' stories are interesting, too, and as an "origin story" for two major Batman villains, Batman Returns is already more than complex in terms of plot.<br /><br />However, there are some character problems that I do count as a flaw. The Penguin has a cadre of circus performers who do his bidding, but even though they're frequently on screen, we never get to learn anything about them. Burton has a core of characters as intriguing as those in Tod Browning's Freaks (1932) available, with actors as interesting as Vincent Schiavelli, but he just doesn't have the space to use them.<br /><br />For that matter, he hardly has space to explore Catwoman. The film plays as if Catwoman may have been as developed and featured in as many scenes as The Penguin, but that cut of the film would have been 4 hours long. So the bulk of the Catwoman scenes had to be excised. Of course, all of this barely leaves any room for Batman. Burton has Batman turn very dark in the public's eye in this film, and unusually, he never bothers to resolve this. As far as we know, at the end, Gothamites still think that Batman is a murdering lunatic. That's an interesting development, but unfortunately it ended up being dropped between this film and the next.<br /><br />As for the script, although there are minor problems including some non-sequiturs and bizarre decisions (in terms of logic) made by characters, it's clear that Burton and writers Sam Hamm and Daniel Waters are not exactly trying to tell a traditional story. A lot of the dialogue is pun-oriented, but often this is fairly subtle and/or complex (of course, sometimes it is very blatant or transparent, too). It helps to look at Batman Returns as a more "poetic" film, as I believe was the intention. This also carries over into more general plot and directorial decisions--plenty of odd character actions, including from minor characters, are done in service of a general mood or style, and that style works very well.<br /><br />"Dark" is the easiest way to sum up Batman Returns in a word, and whether that's a positive or negative depends on your disposition. Anyone who knows me knows that I love dark. So for me, Burton's style largely transcends the flaws in the plot and the script. In many ways, Batman Returns is like an insane, campy horror film, with beautifully eerie production design. Like Batman, Burton is still making many references to other films, but instead of Vertigo (1958) and Star Wars (1977) (well, there's still a slight Star Wars reference), he invokes films like Nosferatu (1922) (including that "Max Schreck" was the name of the actor who played the Dracula-like character there), Motel Hell (1980), the aforementioned Freaks, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) (which has a surreal, dark edge to it) and zombie films--made most explicit in The Penguin's final scene.<br /><br />In terms of visuals and general atmosphere--and that includes the general "feel" of the story, the characters and so on--this couldn't be a stronger 10.

The Mad Monster starts in Dr. Lorenzo Cameron's (George Zucco) laboratory as he perfects his discovery of how to turn a human being into a vicious wolf like monster by injecting animal blood into a human subject who happens to be his dim-witted servant Petro (Glenn Strange), apparently he plans to put the serum at the disposal of the war department who will use it to create an unstoppable army of these monsters, the ultimate soldier! However, first things first as Dr. Cameron has his sights set on some sweet revenge on the people who dismissed his experiments, forced him to resign & subjected him to public ridicule. Dr. Cameron puts his plan into action & uses his monstrous creation to murder Professor Blaine (Robert Strange), in an unfortunate turn of events Dr. Cameron is unable to control the beast & is spotted by a local farmer Jed Harper (Eddie Holden) who spreads the news like wildfire, in another unfortunate coincidence a reporter named Tom Gregory (Johnny Downs) gets wind of the story & starts to investigate, he starts to suspect Dr. Cameron & since Gregory is going out with his daughter Lenora (Ann Nagel) he has plenty of opportunity to sniff around...<br /><br />Directed by Sam Newfield this is really low budget stuff from the 40's, even worse it's dull unoriginal low budget stuff. The script by Fred Myton drags the extremely thin premise out to almost 77 minutes which is far too long, there is no variety in the story & it's basically the same thing over & over. The character's are dull clichés, the mad scientist who conducts pointless experiments that create a monster, the fragile pretty daughter, the reporter who plays the hero & by pure coincidence happens to both be investigating the mysterious deaths said mad scientist is responsible for & is romantically involved with his daughter, the dumb servant, stupid idiotic police & stereotypical shotgun wielding farmers who are always accused of being drunk. This was probably clichéd even back in 1942! The film plods along at a fairly slow pace & director Newfield never manages to maintain or generate much in the way of excitement or atmosphere which is a bad thing. Technically the film isn't great, obviously the budget was minuscule & the mad monster itself looks lame resembling an old homeless wino who hasn't shaved for a few weeks & has had a pair of plastic joke shop fangs placed in his mouth. The black and white cinematography is basic & static like most films from this period while the good Dr. Cameron's laboratory consists of a couch & a table with a few sorry pieces of scientific equipment on top. The acting is stiff & wooden with Petro looking like he's on dope throughout the entire film, Zucco as the mad scientist doesn't convince & is forgettable. The Mad Monster is a pretty lame horror film, there is very little here to entertain although at least I made it through to the end in a single sitting which when I think about it is a bit of an achievement in itself!

In complete contrast to the previous correspondent here, I thought Shoppen Munich (as it was billed when shown with English subtitles here in London at the German Film Festival in November 2007) was very funny, very well acted, and excellently scripted.<br /><br />It's quite audacious to design a 100-minute film that consists exclusively, and relentlessly, of talking heads. But I think Ralf Westhoff succeeded with wit and élan. No standard filmic devices of, say, following a character's soul-baring pronouncement with some meditative minor-seventh-chord music and long-shot nature cutaways. But when someone said something that revealed their souls - well, we were hustled on by the man with the timer for yet another superficial introduction. Which is, of course, the point: the hurtling tickbox superficiality of thirtysomething urbanites, where everything is down to a quick question and answer.<br /><br />Maybe most films are so clichéd and stupid that we English are ready to laugh at any vaguely intelligent and uncontrived cinema, but I can promise you that at the screening tonight (Curzon Cinema, Sun 25 Nov 2007) the full audience bellowed with laughter most of the way through. So I wasn't the only one guffawing!<br /><br />My girlfriend (who speaks German and has lived in Munich) thought it was hilarious. I (who don't speak German and have not been to Munich, I think) thought it was hilarious. I'd recommend Shoppen (Munich) to anyone (especially couples...) looking for a smart, witty, original, wise film about the superficiality of modern relationships and the bewilderment of the generation who feel they've missed out on the happy-ever-after stuff first time round.<br /><br />NB In the English subtitled showing in London, the subtitles (which were very good) were shown completely underneath the slightly reduced picture, not inside it. I thought this was a Good Thing.

**** Spitfire (1934) John Cromwell ~ Katharine Hepburn, Ralph Bellamy, Robert Young <br /><br />Mountain hillbilly Katharine Hepburn (as Trigger Hicks) is a religious back-woods laundry woman. "Going on 18", she begins to attract male attention, and responds by throwing rocks. The arrival of a dam-building construction crew triggers dreams of romance in Ms. Hepburn. She quickly attracts the attention of suave engineer Robert Young (as John Stafford), who flirtingly hides his marital status. Supervising engineer Ralph Bellamy (as George Fleetwood) is also interested in Hepburn, but for different reasons; Mr. Bellamy wants to know more about Jesus Christ, whom Hepburn worships.<br /><br />After Hepburn employs the power of prayer to heal a child, neighborhood folks suspect she is a witch.<br /><br />If it weren't so serious, "Spitfire" might be more amusing; it is an atypical and wildly inappropriate vehicle for its star, who is thoroughly unconvincing. Of the leads, Mr. Bellamy performs best. However, the best characterization is essayed by Sarah Haden (as Etta Dawson), who appeared in George Cukor's stage version, along with Louis Mason (as Bill Grayson). Will Geer (as West Fry), "Grandpa Walton" in the 1970s, has a small role. An unexpected ending helps.

This film captured my heart from the very beginning, when hearing Quincy Jones' first notes or seeing the wonderful color of purple of the flowers in the meadows. This is truly a film to cry and die for...! The whole cast gives the best performance in a film I've seen in years and Spielberg has really outdone himself! Whoppi Goldberg, Margaret Avery, Oprah Winfrey(oh lord!), Danny Glover, and the others, all give us their best and you can feel it - almost touch it! Goldberg IS Celie, she gives her that insecurity and feeling of inferiority that is needed for the character, and we grow with her, we grow strong together with her, throughout the movie, and we triumph with her. Margaret Avery is wonderful as Shug Avery, even when she's at her most arrogant, and shows us that "sinners", indeed, "have souls too". The always sympathetic, charming Danny Glover makes a marvellous job at making people hate him and the magnificent music of(I'd say sir)Quincy Jones adds even more beauty to this splendid film! The photography, the music, the director and the music makes this beautiful, soulful movie into an experience of life. You don't want to miss it! "Sista'...remember my name..."

Judy Holliday struck gold in 1950 withe George Cukor's film version of "Born Yesterday," and from that point forward, her career consisted of trying to find material good enough to allow her to strike gold again.<br /><br />It never happened. In "It Should Happen to You" (I can't think of a blander title, by the way), Holliday does yet one more variation on the dumb blonde who's maybe not so dumb after all, but everything about this movie feels warmed over and half hearted. Even Jack Lemmon, in what I believe was his first film role, can't muster up enough energy to enliven this recycled comedy. The audience knows how the movie will end virtually from the beginning, so mostly it just sits around waiting for the film to catch up.<br /><br />Maybe if you're enamored of Holliday you'll enjoy this; otherwise I wouldn't bother.<br /><br />Grade: C

Before 'Zavet' there was similarity between Tim Burton and Kusturica artistic vision. They find their own, poetic style, and then they cowardly become prisoners of it. Burton has (and still have) Depp, Kusturica has Miki Manojlovic, and somehow they got critical praise for repeating same formula over and over again. However, there are persons like me who find joke funny only when they heard it first time. That's main reason why Kusturica's worst movies are 'Black cat white cat' and 'Life is miracle'. 'Zavet' is something completely different. You may like it, you may hate it, but this is NOT just another Kusturica poetic – Balkanic dreamlike stuff. Of course, if you want to be praised, you have to play safe. It was very easy for Kusturica to make just another flying gypsies movie and get award. Fortunately, as a brave person he chooses to make movie that will be ironic look to his previous works. 'Zavet' can be described as a strong and very harsh parody on previous Kusturica movies directed by Kusturica himself. It is beautiful to see one big movie director to not take himself too seriously. This is quality that Kusturica have and even the biggest, like Bergman or Kubrick, didn't have. This movie is so meaningless that becomes absurd, so absurd that becomes deep, and so unfunny that becomes hilarious. Same stuff that make 'Plan 9 from outer space' cult would made this masterpiece to people who knows how to watch it. Average western viewer would not get few references. Most notable, tire shop owner is Srbljanovic , and this refers to Biljana Srbljanovic, famous Serbian dramatic writer. Politically, she is very active as left oriented liberal, and she despises Kusturica's political views and anarchism. Kusturica's 'everything but not subtle' take to her work was to castrate Miki Manojlovic in Srbljanovic shop. Second reference is made to Goran Bregovic – previous Kusturica's composer. He formed 'Funeral and wedding orchestra' and start performing around Europe. Although he is praised as big composer, Bregovic is just performer and most of his songs (if not all) are poor covers of traditional Serbian songs. Kusturica's take on Bregovic was to confront one wedding and one funeral, with funeral mocking the wedding. Also, music is covering western classics as 'London Bridge is falling down' or French lullabies. You find this unfunny? Now you see how we feel in Serbia when listening Bregovic's horrible covers. I really liked this movie because it is not pretending to be deep, it is so overfilled with symbols that it becomes parody, and it is beautifully directed, as all of his works are. If you like previous Kusturica's movies, there is a big chance that you will hate this. If you don't like couple of his last movies, you may find this as pleasant surprise, because this is like Fellini directing 'Pink Flamingos'. On purpose. I have massive respect for this guy after 'Zavet'. Next Tim Burton movie would surely have main character with pale faces. Next Kusturica movies can easily be about aliens invading Earth. That's the reason why he is most interesting director on Earth, whether you like it or not.

"The Planet" is an astounding piece of film making. For a mere £8000 Stirton Production have turned out one of the most original sci-fi films for a long time.<br /><br />Starring the physically intimidating Mike Mitchell, the film is a mix of great special effects, strong storytelling and well planned action. From the opening space battle, to the pounding finale, everything about this film appears well above it's budget.<br /><br />To start with the special effects, while certainly not "Revenge Of The Sith" standard, they are on level, if not above, the likes of Babylon 5 and Farscape. And for a snip of a price as well. The detail and the movement is superb, and captures the imagination from the off. The design of everything, ships, weapons, entities is second to none. The imagination and creativity involved is a real surprise for a film of this budget.<br /><br />Another surprise was the strength of the story, and the arc it takes. There are a few twists and turn, most of which are well written into the script, surprising and well played out. I was surprised that, two years in the making and first imagined 15 years ago, how relevant some aspects of the story are to today's society. With the happenings around the world, there may be a certain resonance with the lengths the mercenaries are forced to go to in order to survive.<br /><br />Even the sounds effects are spot on, as is the atmospheric music. The use of light and costume add further to the professional look. Balmedie Beach in Aberdeen looks a desolate and lonely place.<br /><br />In all honesty this film looks 10, if not 100, times the budget spent, and that's testament to a creative, hard working team of people, from the director, to the cast, to the effects via the producer and sound team. Wonderful effort, I recommend you get your hand on a copy ASAP

**SPOILERS** Highly charge police drama about a serial killer loose in and around the small town of Riverside Wisconsin. Who's being tracked down by the local police using policewoman Gina Pulasky, Helen Hunt,as an undercover decoy to catch him. <br /><br />Nothing new in this made for TV movie that you haven't seen before but the depth of the acting and screenplay is unusually good and brings out a lot about not only the killer but the policewoman's, as well as her fellow policeman lover, state of mind.<br /><br />Having been put under psychiatric care after shooting an armed and unstable assailant, who attacked her partner with a rifle. Officer Palusky is given the task to go undercover to get close to murder suspect Kayle Timler, Steven Webber. After he was positively identified by the little girl Sahsa, Kim Kluznick,who saw him not far from where little Timmy Curtis was found stabbed, 18 times, to death the next day.<br /><br />Getting a job at the Mr. "C" Diner where Tim works Gina gets to become very friendly with him and later tells him, in order to get Tim to open up, about him possibly being the serial murderer that she once killed in a hit-and-run accident a 79 year old woman. <br /><br />Tim who is said to have a genius IQ doesn't seem to pick up on Gina's attempt to trap him even when he later sees her at a bowling alley with her fellow cops spending a night out. Playing some weird cat and mouse game with her Tim at one point get's Gina, at knife point, to admit that she's wired. But Gina tells him that she was forced to do it by the police to get a break and an early release from prison. Besides Tim's instability and criminal actions we find out that Gina isn't all there as well.She seems to be suffering from her being rejected by her father who left her, with a drunk and abusing mother, as a young girl that's effecting her work as an undercover policewoman. <br /><br />There's also the fact that Gina's lover policeman Will McCaid (Jeff Fahey), who's estranged from his wife and two kids, who's also on the serial murder case is too overprotective of her. That causes Gina to almost blow her cover and that has her later being taken off her assignment. <br /><br />Put back on undercover duty by her boss Capt. Cheney (Dan Conway), over the objections of Officer McCaid, after another young boy, 12 year-old Davy Marish,was found murdered Gina finally get's herself together and gets Tim to admit that he's the person who's responsible for the string of murders in the area. Gina does it by having a hidden tape recorder that she replaced the one that she gave to him to show how honest she is, hidden on her.<br /><br />The movie "In the Company of Darkness" wasn't really that exceptional but the acting by Helen Hunt Jeff Fahey and especially Steven Webber was. It was these high caliber performances that lifted the film well above the average made for TV movie were used to seeing.

Every role, down to the smallest, has been cast and acted with bravado.<br /><br />The extraordinary Jena Malone never takes a misstep. Her two co-stars are equal to her in this film. Ryan Gosling may be the best actor of his generation. Chris Klein gives his best performance to date. This is a thought and conversation provoking film that should be seen by teens and young adults. You'll think and talk about this film for days. Highly recommended.

RIFIFI (Jules Dassin - France 1955)<br /><br />To me, it seems a very risky idea to attempt a Hollywood-remake of Jules Dassin's 1955 classic RIFIFI. Planned for release in 2007, Al Pacino apparently is gonna play the lead, taking on the role of Tony le Stephanois. Risky business... How they're gonna pull this off?<br /><br />Ironically, Dassin was blacklisted in Hollywood and went on to try his luck in France and made this little masterpiece, aptly called by some "The Grandddady of all caper- and heist movies". In my opinion, it remains a one-of-a-kind classic, beautifully filmed with one of the most memorable endings ever to be put on film. Whatever one's opinion of the film.<br /><br />In the last couple of years RIFIFI has become dangerously overpraised. Nevertheless, this French noir-classic shouldn't be forgotten. Go see it, before the remake is out there, in order to have some ammunition for comparing the two.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 9/10

It's a strange thing to see a film where some scenes work rather weakly (if only in comparison to other films in its legacy), and others in a 'sub-plot' or supporting story are surprisingly provocative and strong. Sudden Impact is one of those cases, where Clint Eastwood as star/producer/director shows when he can be at his best, or at his lessor of times when dealing with a crime/mystery/detective story in his Dirty Harry fame. We get that 'make my day' line, and un-like in the first film where his 'do I feel lucky' speech was playful and cool the first time and the second time at the end tough as nails, here it's switched around. He gets into another shamble with the department, as usual, when he tries to fight crime 'his' way, in particular with a diner robbery (inspiration for Pulp Fiction?) and with a high speed pursuit with a senior citizen bus. He's told to 'take a vacation', and that's the last thing on his mind. This whole main plot isn't very convincing aside from the expectancy of the story and lines, which just adds to the frustration. But soon his story merges with the sub-plot that Eastwood develops from the start.<br /><br />Enter Sandra Locke's character, Jennifer Spencer, whom we soon learn after some (appropriately) mysterious scenes that she and her shy sister were victims of a cruel, unjust sexual assault (err, outright rape), and is sleekly, undercover-like, getting revenge. Her scenes and story are the strongest parts of the film, the most intense, and finally when it goes into Callahan's storyline (he's getting facts in the same small town she's in on a murder), the film finally finds a focus between Eastwood's classic form of clearly defined good vs. evil (though sometimes blurred, to be sure). Eastwood films the flashbacks, not to say too much about them, expertly, in a fresh, experimental style; the trademark Lalo Schifrin score is totally atmospheric in these scenes and in others. It almost seems like a couple of times an art-house sensibility has crept into Eastwood's firmly straightforward storytelling style, which helps make the film watchable.<br /><br />It's a shame, though, that in the end it goes more for the expectable (or maybe not expectable) points, and until the third act Callahan doesn't have much to do except his usual 'it's smith...Wesson...and me' shtick. However, with Locke he gets out of her a very good performance (more subtle and touching than the one in the Gauntlet) and an exciting climax at an amusement park. In a way I do and don't agree with Ebert's remark that it's like a 'music video' in Eastwood's style here. I admit there is comparisons with the simplicity of both, the directness, but the scenes where Eastwood does break form are superior to those of any music video. It's cheesy, it's hard-edged, it's not up to par with the first two 'Harry' pictures, but hey, there could be worse ways to spend a couple hours with the master of the .44.

I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.<br /><br />Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.<br /><br />Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.<br /><br />My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)<br /><br />Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...

A Pentagon science team seem to have perfected a serum which causes invisibility but when the lead boffin tries it out on himself he can't reverse the process. Frustrated and drunk with power, he turns psychotic in the classic H.G. Wells tradition.<br /><br />This is a gleefully horrible Invisible Man story, delivered with relish by the ever-tasteful Verhoeven and Bacon as the genius-turned-loonytoon-maniac. As with much of Verhoeven's work it has a terrific unrestrained sense of Boy's-Own comic-book adventure (the secret underground lab where the scientists work is just wonderful) combined with the most horrific and depraved visuals (women in their underwear being groped and attacked by an invisible fiend, animals beaten to death, literally gallons of blood and wholesale slaughter in the last two reels). Whilst the story doesn't ring any new twists on an old idea, the CG special effects by Scott E. Anderson are eye-poppingly brilliant as we see veins and arteries, cardiovascular systems, muscles, tissue, bones and flesh all literally appear out of nowhere. In particular, a sequence where the team bring a gorilla back from the invisible state and the scene where Bacon drowns Devane in a swimming pool, are absolutely breathtaking in the detail and artistic invention of the effects. The film also has a great soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith and classic horror-movie photography by Jost Vacano. The young cast are pretty much overshadowed by the movie's technical pedigree, but both Shue and Dickens are impressively out of their depth. This is a great fun nasty movie.

I gave this movie 2 instead of 1 just just because I am a polite person. This movie made me loose 90 minutes of my life in which I could have done something useful for the human kind or just me. <br /><br />The dialog is poor, the actors never look scared! Even if it's supposed to be a horror movie. For example the scene in which Kurt collects the bones of his former colleague. He should be frightened, but he looks quite normal. The chick of the movie is such a cliché. The one thing I liked about her is the dress she wore in the final scene.And, by the way, the end was extremely predictable with the cocoon blinking pinkly in the box. As a matter of fact, I was thinking more of an ant walking around on the back seat of the car. But it still didn't surprise me.

Watching this stinker constitutes cruel and unusal punishment at the hands of Sandler. Truly a slow and painful death.<br /><br />'Bought the DVD in the $5.88 bin at Wal Mart. But the thought that keeps echoing in my head is, "How can I get my money back?"<br /><br />The most unforgivable thing about the movie is that the boat JUST DOES NOT SINK!<br /><br />Best constructive suggestion: Mystery Comedy Theatre. You know that show on the SciFi Channel in which some guy and his muppet-machines spoof the most unwatchable horror flicks (Mystery Science Theatre). IMMEDIATELY, spin off a comedy program and feature this flick. Without a good humorous spoof of this train wreck, I fear that viewers may actually begin following Sandler with ice picks and chainsaws.<br /><br />

Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection.

Appalling, shallow, materialistic nonsense. How women (and gay men?) can enjoy this rubbish is beyond me. No self-respecting man would ever want to be with one of these neurotic gold diggers. What is even more concerning is that so many reviewers say they relate to the women on the show. If that is the future of women, Lord help us all. Showing your independence and being respected as equals with men should not be about spreading your legs every three seconds with a different man. I think this demeans women and does not do them justice. But this review is no rant against women. Fans of this show say it is "hilarious" and "rivoting" but every time I have watched this show I have just struggled to stay awake. Despite the narrative of the reporter woman, at no point in this show is there even anything close to something that could be considered a rational thought. So, it's not entertaining, and it's not informative, so why would you bother watching it? One out of ten stars.

We've all seen bad movies, well this one takes the cake. I've seen that Junior movie box staring back at many times from my many journeys to the horror section at the local video store, and I was a little interested, it looks like it pays some homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, so I thought I'd get it. Mistake! Junior sucks hard, long, and with commitment. In other words it's really bad. Although it does win my award for most creative use of a bikini top. AVOID!!

I bought this film from my local blockbuster for 99p an it's been sitting in my video bookcase for at least a year now. Then tonight I decided to see it, the film was quite different to what I had expected and I didn't find any humour in it all I saw was that it was a bleak look at people dealing with love relationships and sexual orientation and I didn't really see the psycho killer plot really having a point except to add tension to the end of the film. I felt that the person playing the lesbian woman did a great job. I was following her emotions and what happened around her. Some people would probably have seen some of the stuff that she does as funny but I could really put myself in her place, loving someone but them rejecting you at every turn no matter how hard you try. I thought it was a very moving film and dealt with all the different sexualities well. I was expecting something like Bound & Gagged : A love story, but this is a very different film. Not for bigots.

I believe that war films should try to convey the terror of war, avoid idealism and respect some rudimentary military principles. Zvezda barely does the first. Zvezda being a Russian war film, I was expecting patriotism, sentimentality, beautiful poetic pictures, a lush score, Slavic cheekbones and cruel Germans. What I didn't need was the naive love non-affair, the unrealistically silly war scenes and the abuse of the syrupy soundtrack in a film which avoided carefully all historical or political references (Stalinism, Nazism, Holocaust) only to end on a passing but nonetheless insulting to our sense of history endnote about "liberating Poland". A missed opportunity as a film but not as propaganda apparently.

Disappointing film. Performance of actors is weak. Sets are fine, could have been better. The story is also weak. Battle sequences are awful. Sounds and quality of film are trashy. The history of Kazakh people was told very poorly. This film should have included more Kazakh actors, in leading roles. And also should have been in Kazakh language. Kuno Bekker and Jay Hernandez are Hispanic origins. I don't get it. Since when Hispanic people play Turkic-Mongolian people. This film is shame of Kazakh cinema. Rustam Ibragimbekov disappointed me. He is one of the finest filmmakers in the world. Czekh director is excused, since he is not nomadic origin, he cannot know true spirit and history of nomads.

This Movie is a warning to all people sat surfing the internet on a typical day at the office. My Warning is ,Do not reveal too much about yourself, 2 Be careful who you cross!! ,there are spies on this internet thing. I thought that it was so scary what that man and woman combination did to poor Angela Bennett, I did not realise that somebody could take ones life away in one click of this mouse Angela I thought did a sterling job of outwitting Jack Delvin and that awful girl my question is, why does that computer make that noise when it works? like a clicking sound mine does not do this or this one. This film also tells you that there is fraud on this internet Also why couldn't Angela do the virus destroyer programme at a CyberCafe? I also thought that like all computers the transfer rate to disk was slow that is correctly portrayed in this film when you save the programme to your floppy disk the bar only moved slowly!!! I quite liked Angela's house at the beginning of the film as well Why did no one believe Angela???

Not being the least bit familiar with the characters from the comic book series, I expected this film to merely accomplish the basic: introduce me to the characters and their inherent characteristics, present a plot, and end with the destruction of the main adversary and perhaps hint at the possibility of a sequel. And that's exactly what this movie happens to deliver.<br /><br />However, unlike with most other comic book movies, I felt that this one did it with a bit of class. Risking a more limited audience with strong language and graphic fight scenes, "Blade" presents a very modern, believable and dismal world whose little nuances effectively managed to elicit a sense of dread--as minor as it may have been--from a viewer who rarely ever becomes involved in a story unless an emotional (i.e., sappy) aspect is concerned.<br /><br />Yes, the movie has innumerable plotholes, and preposterously unrealistic situations such as a standard female doctor being astute enough to contrive what no one else has been able to for several thousand years. But when you have an enemy as cool as the one in this movie, and fight scenes with involving and exciting camera cuts and special effects such as this, what else matters? It may run a little long, but for what it sets out to do, "Blade" stands out in sharp relief among most other movies in this genre.

This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).<br /><br />The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots.