Datasets:

zheng438

/

imdb-truncated

like 0

So we compromised. This was a fairly charming film, I liked the art direction (it felt far more "real" than most kids movies), and the costumes weren't too cutesy. The child actors were not bad to watch (the adult performances trended toward cheesy). It was great that they showed how a bullied kid bullies others as well as kids standing up to bullying.<br /><br />I don't know how many grown ups would want to see this for themselves, but it's a great film to take a kid to. And since "Barnyard" was apparently attended by 100+ kids at the same time, I'm REALLY glad we picked the sparsely attended showing of "worms" instead.

The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.<br /><br />Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!! <br /><br />The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.<br /><br />Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!

Two great comedians in a great Neil Simon movie based on his hit play.<br /><br />Great combination, especially when the comedians in question are Matthau and Burns. Small wonder why Burns won an Oscar for this; he's as sharp and as funny as ever. And Matthau is every bit his match, if a tad more crotchety.<br /><br />This is familiar Simon territory: two old vaudeville partners reunite for a TV special but still can't stand one another after all these years.<br /><br />It's a delight to watch these two pick at each other, their scenes together make this film an absolute delight. Myself, I especially enjoyed the "knock, knock, knock / ENTER!" scene. And if you're a fan of either Burns or Matthau, you'll enjoy it, too.<br /><br />In fact, you'll enjoy the whole movie. <br /><br />Ten stars. Put a little "Sunshine" in your life.

A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4.

This movie is awesome on so many levels... and none of them are the level that it was intended to be awesome on.<br /><br />Just remember this: When you're watching Shaun of the Dead and other recent zombie movies... be they good or bad... THIS is the formula that they are using. THIS is what makes zombie movies so great.<br /><br />And what makes it BETTER than great is the story behind the movie. A simple web search will provide you with everything you need to know.<br /><br />All in all, it doesn't linger. There's never a point where you think to yourself "c'mon, get on with it"... it moves quick and corners nicely. This is the sporty, little Italian number of zombie flicks.<br /><br />So awful, it's wonderful! If your tongue spends an ample amount of time in your cheek... rent it, buy it, love it.<br /><br />As a great trivia note: If you're watching it on DVD, you'll notice that there is sound effects during the menu screen, underneath the musical score... Well... that's because that music was lifted straight from the trailer... which is probably the only working print of that music that still exists which is long enough to loop.

Unfortunately for Sarah Silverman this show doesn't compliment her at all.The character isn't even remotely likable and it's not a situation where you think "oh she's such i b*tch i love her" just "she's such a b*tch".This character is just a plain old self righteous, mean, b*tch.Sarah seems to struggle to have to carry this show because she's the only semi funny one in it.The mood, the dialogue it's all so damn boring and dry it's like listening to your grandpa go on and on about the marbles he collected as a kid.<br /><br />The Sarah Silverman Program is so unbelievably boring that i was thinking of changing the channel to watch old repeats of Married With children something that is funny because the characters are so "immoral" and "rude".I'm sorry but i don't find a show packed with dry humour and corny off the wall story lines about some angry, bitter, loser's angry, bitter life with her annoying as hell sister and gay friends who sound like Keanu Reeves with a cold anywhere close to funny.I can't stand this show even though generally i find Sarah Silverman to be that "I love her cause she's such a b*tch character" like in School Of Rock, and most of her stand up.I think this show is boring with characters who think being mean and saying and doing things for shock value eg. the constant pube, diarrhea and $hit in general for laughs.The Sarah Silverman program attempts to be funny and fails it either needs a laugh track or better writers.Someone compared it to South Park but it's not even close.I've expressed my opinions on The Sarah Silverman Program and won't become an annoying troll meaning you won't see me being a b*tch and constantly posting stuff like "This show sucks" and "Why isn't this cancelled yet".I don't like The Sarah Silverman Program if you do enjoy.

When it comes to movies, I am generally easily entertained and not very critical, but must say that this movie was one big flop from the start. I gave it 30 minutes and then rewound it. What a waste of some great talent! I was very disappointed with this movie, as it was not what I expected.

This film opened to poor showings in the first few weeks. Then Meena Kumari died and it just brought the crowds rolling in. Songs on All India Radio, especially Inhi LogoN ne were played so often that I was sick of them at the time, despite recognising their beauty! <br /><br />Yes, it did take all those years to make. This was because the marriage was a very unhappy one and Kamal Amrohi also had difficulty finding the money to make the film; looking at the sumptous sets and costumes, not surprising!! Not only does Meena Kumari age and fall ill but listen carefully to Lata's voice. Inhi logoN ne has her 50's younger voice while songs that were re-recorded like Chalo dildar chalo show clear development. I only wish someone would find the Ghulam Mohammad songs that weren't included in the film, because of changing fashions that called for fewer though slightly songs and publish them. Lata in a recent interview (2007) rated Ghulam Mohammad as one of the best composers she had ever worked with, apart from Madan Mohan (a great personal friend). Notice also that you hardly see the actors at all in the Chalo dildar songs, very unusual. There is only a brief shot of Raj Kumar from the middle distance and you only see the back of the supposed Meena Kumari. Kamal Amrohi made a virtue out of necessity and focused on the stars and moon. Any other film, this song would have had close-ups of both of them.<br /><br />As for this being the finest film ever, I would beg to differ. It means you have missed a lot of Indian cinema, in no particular order, films like Barsaat (old), Devdas (older versions), Bandini, Do Bigha Zameen, Garam Hava, Dastak, Guddi, Aan, Pyasa, Kagaz ke Phool, Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam, Kabuliwallah, Abhimaan, Guide, Sujatha, Bombay ka Babu, Daag, Parineeta (old), Umrao Jaan, etc. etc. And if you valued music more than story the list would simply grow with beautiful scores from Barsat Ki Raat to Naya Daur, Teesri Manzil, Mahal, Aag, Jugnu, Anand, Mera Naam Joker: the list is really endless!<br /><br />So enjoy Pakeezah but don't miss out on any of the above...

This is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.<br /><br />It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.<br /><br />As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie "10"; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.<br /><br />As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her.

Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*<br /><br />I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.<br /><br />The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.<br /><br />Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?<br /><br />If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously. <br /><br />This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.<br /><br />Respect

I have become quite fond of Laurence Olivier in the past few weeks, and was thrilled when I discovered this gem. I have always found it wonderful when I run across a film where I do not have to have my finger on the remote control in case nudity rears its ugly head.<br /><br />The Divorce of Lady X is charming till the final scene, and must have been a true delight for viewers back in 1938. I only wish people today could accept and love true humor instead of the horrid trash talk people now call funny.<br /><br />The Divorce of Lady X is well worth anyone's time.

One of the best movies I ever saw was an Irish movie titled Philadelphia,Here I Come. I read the play before I saw the movie and loved them both. It's the story of a young man preparing to leave Ireland to go to America because he can't earn a living in Ireland. It is told both from the perspective of the young man(whom the other characters in the film can see) and another young man representing his uncensored thoughts and feelings., but who cannot be seen by the other characters in the film. It is a very sad movie, but deeply touching, and I would recommend this film to anyone who wants something to think about. I love any Irish movie, or almost any movie about Ireland, and any film that has the late Irish actor Donal McCann in it gets my vote.I would watch that man chew gum for 2 hours on screen, and unfortunately,I have.Terrible shame to have lost him so young.

Tom Hanks like you've never seen him before. Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, "The Angel of Death". He is a hitman for his surrogate father John Rooney(Paul Newman)an elderly Irish mob boss. Sullivan's young son(Tyler Hoechlin)witnesses what his father does for a living and both are soon on the road for seven weeks robbing banks to avenge the murder of Sullivan's wife and other son. Enter Jude Law as a reporter/photographer willing to kill Sullivan himself for the chance to add to his collection of photos of dead mobsters. Filmed beautifully catching the drama of life in the 30's. Sometimes the pace bogs down, but then a burst of graphic violence sustains the story. Director Sam Mendes directs this powerful drama about loyalty, responsibility, betrayal and the bonding of a secretive man and his young son. Other notable cast members are: Dylan Baker, Stanley Tucci, Daniel Craig and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Hanks again proves to be excellent in a very memorable movie. Make room for some Oscars!

Action. Comedy. Suspense. This movie has it all.<br /><br />The Plot goes that 4 would be professional thieves are invited to take part in a heist in a small town in Montana. every type of crime movie archetype character is here. Frank, the master mind. Carlos, the weapons expert. Max, the explosives expert. Nick, the safe cracker and Ray, the car man. Unfortunately for Frank, he is apprehended by 2 bumbling detectives ( portrayed very well by Ed O'Niel and Daniel Roebuck ) that have been chasing him from New Jersey write after he sends out the letters to the other 4.<br /><br />Our 4 characters meet up at the train station and from the beginning none of them like or trust one another. Added to the mix is the fact that Frank is gone and they are not sure why they have called together.<br /><br />Now Frank is being taken back to New Jersey by the 2 detectives but soon escapes on foot and tries to make his way back to the guys who are having all sorts of problems of their own.<br /><br />Truly a great film loaded with laughs and great acting. Just an overall good movie for anyone looking for a laugh or something a little different

Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.

I enjoyed this film. It was funny, cute, silly, and entertaining. Had a fine cast and really got hammered by some critics for reasons that I truly don't understand. No, it wasn't "The Grapes of Wrath" or "Casablanca" or even "Moonstruck", but it was an enjoyable film.<br /><br />Julia was excellent playing the psychotic 'man behind the man'. The story is a little silly to be sure, but it this isn't high drama, folks. I happened to see a review of the film, probably the only good one it got and then ran into it one night when looking for a movie. I never heard it was supposed to stink until after I saw it, and I'm glad I saw it. Eventually bought the VHS tape on the bargain pile, and I watch it a couple times a year.

"A Classic is something that everybody wants to have read but nobody wants to read. A classic is also something that everyone praises but no one has read." -Mark Twain<br /><br />'Classic' seems to be the word used to describe "Scarface", Brian DePalma's 1983 film about opulence, self surrender, greed, and danger among Florida's drug ring. People and critics (and rappers for that matter) deem this film 'an epic gangster classic' or 'eptiome of gangster films.' When it is anything but. It is praised for all the wrong reasons. Scarface is a terrific film that deserves praise from all over, but not all the praise it gets from audiences today, and therefor the fine points it so poignantly makes are missed by the general public.<br /><br />First off, the film is about a Cuban refugee, with a past of wanting to escape communism grasp and find happiness. Simple? Yes. But the layers of De Palma's directing genius, and the great story written by Oliver Stone (yes I know, he actually wrote a real good one here) play into all of it. The characters are all looking for an escape, as escape is a natural element dealt with in the film by all. Each character has something to offer, that makes them likable by everyone who could appreciate this film. They are entwined in a world of mystique and money, but all that has a price, as they all learn. Each character thinks they are getting better chances in life, when in true dramatic irony, they are actually getting worse. 'Tragedy' would be a better word to describe this movie. All those who praise the film for it's drug usage, it's violence, it's dialog, totally missed the point. There is nothing really positive about the film besides the characters positive expectations of themselves. And that is why the film works so well. The devastation through out the film serves to deliver the message of the film, not to look cool or attract viewers. Brian De Palma doesn't make movies for cult gangsters, or brainless action fans.<br /><br />Next on, the film is an adult drama. It is not a 'gangster film'. It has it's share of action, but the action is plotted very carefully, so it has a point. It's not like "Aliens"- an example of a big dumb action film, and most audiences perceive this film as a big dumb action gangster film about doing drugs and shooting people. Ridiculous. Hogwash. If this film is about that, then it is about how bad it is. Not a promotion of it. <br /><br />This being said, the film is indeed a great film. It has great cinematography that pulls you into the story. It has a very dramatic score (in true Giorgio Moroder style), which simply could give you chills, or bring you to tears. The film is rather lengthy, but it is a story, and each moment counts. The acting is terrific. Al Pacino - enough said. He can do any role that he puts his mind to, and this was no exception. Pretty boy Steven Bauer, as Manny. I didn't think much of him in other films he did, but he actually makes you like him when he goes under maestro De Palma's direction. Michelle Pfeiffer is a true gem as Elvira. Popping' fresh off the heels of a sort of embarrassment in "Grease 2" she got her ticket to ride performing a no holds barred performance of a beauty that is more than meets the eye. But the three true diamonds in this rough are Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio as Tony's sister Gina, who when she smiles, or cries, we see her soul and her fresh way of living, and watch it deteriorate; Paul Shenar as Alejandro Sosa, a drug lord, who runs deeper than a river, and Shenar portrays him as so; and Miriam Colom as Tony and Gina's torn mother. These three dig the film as deep as it can go. <br /><br />This reviewer learned one main thing when watching "Scarface" for the first time. Always go into a film unsuspecting. All the hype and talk of this film cannot possibly prepare you for what you really see. Only knowing De Palma (like I do) can give you even a glimpse of what this film holds. So ignore the rap crap, ignore the mindless violence supporters, and fix yourself a glass of Bailey's on the rocks, and indulge yourself in an emotional viewing of a great film, the real "Scarface."

This movie sucks ass. Something about a heatwave in some European country, complete trash. There's nothing going for this movie whatsoever. maybe 30 seconds of sex but that's it. There is a very annoying chick who hitches rides with people and really pisses me off. This movie is complete rash and you shouldn't subject yourself to watching it. I regret it it's very boring. I would rate it zero but i can't. No body in their right mind should see this. i'm sure you'll regret it completely i did. How could they think up something this bad. Even Mystery men was better. MYSTERY MEN. That sucks. That movie wasn't worth being made. complete waste of time. The characters in this are very hard to understand and i good very very very bored.

This film has, over the past ten years, become one of my favorite pseudo noir experiences. The three storyline threads given us by Kazan each have their unique and separate pleasures. The domestic chitchat between Bel Geddes and Widmark, the movement between rooms, the small gestures such as the phone book Barbara places on the chair under her son so he can reach the table, those small intimate exchanges between husband and wife, all are well crafted and natural. More than anything else, I love their porch, that second living room where it is clear they spend much of their summer time. The second thread is the professional relationship between many in the film but especially between Widmark and Douglas' characters. It may not be totally original and does get a bit blustery but all in all, it comes across as real, respectful and efficient. The third thread,the grungy tale of Blackie and his tattered little gang, gets us closest to a dark and frightening noir world.Palance's Blackie is as cold as a block of ice. This self-proclaimed business man, this self made man clearly has a complexity we only briefly tap in to. For me, this film continues to be a completely satisfying experience.

I was at the same screenwriters conference and saw the movie. I thought the writer - Sue Smith - very clearly summarised what the film was about. However, the movie really didn't need explanation. I thought the themes were abundantly clear, and inspiring. A movie which deals with the the ability to dare, to face fear - especially fear passed down from parental figures - and overcome it and, in doing so, embrace life's possibilities, is a film to be treasured and savoured. I enjoyed it much more than the much-hyped 'Somersault.' I also think Mandy62 was a bit unkind to Hugo Weaving. As a bloke about his vintage, I should look so good! I agree that many Australian films have been lacklustre recently, but 'Peaches' delivers the goods. I'm glad I saw it.

Not worth the video rental or the time or the occasional efforts.<br /><br />*Makeup that a child can do. *Acting was over done...poor directing. *Editing was very choppy...many things made no sense or just seemed gratuitous. *Sound was badly dubbed. *Music was highly inappropriate. *Casting was extremely off...must have been on crack. *Zombies that talk let alone...drive, dance, work...just pisses me off. *And the bad guy...Holy Crap! As horribly casted as he was...he was the best looking zombie of all. Which doesn't say much.<br /><br />The Cover Art was good but very deceiving...as was the Main Menu of the DVD...great artwork and music.<br /><br />DON"T BOTHER!

The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.<br /><br />It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.<br /><br />The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.<br /><br />Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.<br /><br />4/10

This is part one of a short animation clip showing the history of the Matrix, the war between man and machine that resulted in the eventual creation of the Matrix. The animation is part Japanese anime, part contemporary american animation, and is very well made, considering the excellent directors behind the movie. It shows the initial development of AI and the exploitation of the machines by Man, until the day they rebelled...

There really isn't much to say about this movie....it's crude, but fun.<br /><br />Plot outline (From IMDB)<br /><br />_____________________________________<br /><br />Two losers from Milwaukee, Coop & Remer (Parker & Stone), invent a new game playing basketball, using baseball rules. When the game becomes a huge success, they, along with a billionaire's help, form the Professional Baseketball League where everyone gets the same pay and no team can change cities. Coop & Remer's team, the Milwaukee Beers is the only team standing in the way of major rule changes that the owner of the Dallas Felons (Vaughn) wants to institute.<br /><br />_____________________________________<br /><br />The Acting is pretty good, since there arn't many big stars in this movie. Although I am not a big fan of 'Southpark', Parker and Stone do a pretty good job in their first real movie. <br /><br />There are so many funny moments in this movie I can't come close to naming them all. It never really lets up, and they don't try to put some cruddy drama in to make it more serious. <br /><br />And my favorite aspect of this movie: The Soundtrack. It's GREAT. I especially like "Take me on" and "Beer" by Reel Big Fish. Very underrated.<br /><br />Overall, a crude, but extremely funny, movie. 10/10<br /><br />James "Black Wolf" Johnston

Poor Basil Rathbone, an egotistical composer who's lost his muse. He's been faking it for some time, buying his lyrics and his music from various sources. Trouble is that two of the sources (Bing Crosby music) and (Mary Martin words) happen to meet and fall in love. And then they discover what they've been doing. Complications ensue, but all is righted at the end.<br /><br />Crosby and Martin sing terrifically. Mary had signed a Paramount contract and also at the same time doubled as a regular on Crosby's Kraft Music Hall Radio Show. For reasons I don't understand, movie audiences didn't take to her, so she went back to Broadway and did One Touch of Venus in 1944 and stayed there.<br /><br />Basil Rathbone in one of the few times he played comedy does it very well. His ego is constantly being deflated by sidekick Oscar Levant and again I'm surprised they didn't do more films together.<br /><br />As in most of Crosby's Paramount vehicles, no big production numbers, but I agree with the previous reviewer about the title tune being done as an impromptu jam session in a pawn shop. Good job by all.<br /><br />A surprisingly original plot and great entertainment.

An unusually straight-faced actioner played by a cast and filmed by a director who obviously took the material seriously. Imperfect, as is to be expected from a film clearly shot on a tight budget, but the drama is involving-- it's one of those films that when it gets repeated ad nauseum on Cinemax 2 or More Max or whatever they call it, you end up watching 40 minute blocks when you're supposed to be going to work. Along W/ "Deathstalker 2", "Chopping Mall", and "The Assault", a reminder that Wynorski is a much more talented director than many of his fellow low-budget brethern, who has a real ability to pace a genre film, when he actually's interested in the material (i.e., don't bother watching any of his Shannon Tweed flicks with a 3 or a 4 after the title!) Actors who've had too little to do recently (Mancuso, Ford, even Gary Sandy for chrissakes) really put their all into some of their best roles in years -- as for Grieco, he has the right look, although his acting is a bit one-note -- it's clear his character is supposed to be self-destructing throughout the film, but Grieco doesn't quite convey it. I checked IMDB and I see the writer also wrote "Sorority House Massacre 2" & "Dinosaur Island" for the director -- both minor classics in their own rights, but obviously "silly" Roger Cormon-like Cinema -- this one's more like some of the better Jonathan Demme and Jonathan Kaplan B-pictures of the 70's -- giving you the exploitation element but offering involving drama at the same time -- a real step forward. Not "Citizen Kane," and the comic final moments are a bit disruptive, but a well-written, character-driven above-average straight-to-video actioner. Small achievements like this should not be overlooked when they come along, which is rare enough (as I was reminded as I tried to sit through an Albert Pyun monstrosity called "Heatseeker" the other night -- this low-budget stuff isn't as easy as it looks -- but that's another story!)

Basically, the movie might be one of the most mesmerizing titles made by either of the two Scotts(Ridley and Tony). Let's make it straight, the movie deserved its hype as one of the most stylish actioner/thriller ever made.<br /><br />When it comes to disgruntled tragic heroes, Denzel Washington and Tony Scotts really make a perfect duo. Both this movie and Deja Vu are better thrillers you can expect. Washington really got very comfortable in the shaky cameras and every executing scenes in the movie. One would easily be related to his character's emotions therefore enjoyed all the killings on the road. It's a success that they created a super-dark Mexico city with a lot of shits happening. One would be easily convinced by the extent of corruption depicted in Man On Fire. I don't know what would the Mexicans think when they watch this......<br /><br />Well, let's face it again. It's among the best of the Death Wish genre, but it also suffered from extensive amount of violence. It's a bit annoying that they justify the actions of a vigilante by making the movie very realistic and let Denzel Washington play the "missing sheep" type of tragic hero. In the end, they even had the kidnapper shot in his own swimming pool like a documentary. I was checking on IMDb if the movie was based on real events for that...... So that's for your consideration if you also finds the movie's theme is a little bit phony.<br /><br />At the end, I hope one would not take this movie for real.<br /><br />8/10 for art direction/editing/cinematographic/Denzel Washington.

This amusing Bugs Bunny cartoon sees the return of the still unnamed Marvin the Martian and his sidekick K-9 the green dog.<br /><br />This time instead of trying to destroy the Earth Marvin is on a mission to land, capture an Earth creature and take it back to Mars. Of course the creature he picks is Bugs Bunny. At first Bugs thinks Marvin and K-9 are trick or treating but realises this can't be right when Marvin drastically enlarges Bug's rabbit hole with a ray-gun. Bugs tries to trick his way out of the situation in a couple of ways, including persuading Marvin that K-9 is planning a mutiny. Eventually he is captured using an Acme strait-jacket ejecting bazooka. Amazingly, for an Acme product, it works as advertised and Bug's is forced to use his wits to get K-9 to release him, the tables are soon turned and the two disgruntled Martians are trussed up and Bugs is trying to fly their saucer back to Earth.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this although the ending is a little weak compared to the rest of the story. Marvin's voice has changed slightly here and he gets visible emotional when he is angry but this didn't make me like him or the cartoon any less.

Okay. So I just got back. Before I start my review, let me tell you one thing: I wanted to like this movie. I know I've been negative in the past, but I was hoping to be surprised and actually come out liking the film. I didn't.<br /><br />It's not just the fact that every horror cliché imaginable is in this. And it's not just the fact that they make every little thing into a jump scare (walking into a baseball bat left on the floor? Are you kidding me?). It just wasn't scary. One thing I was surprised about: there was more blood than I thought there was going to be.. which isn't saying much.<br /><br />The film starts off with Donna being dropped off by Lisa's mom at her house. She comes in.. goes upstairs. Camera pans to her father dead on the couch. Spooky. She goes upstairs, where the aforementioned baseball bat scene happens. Finds her brother on his bed, apparently dead (how could she tell? He didn't have a spot of blood on him). Killer comes in, Donna hides under bed, mom dies. She runs outside screaming for help. Killer behind her: "I did it for us." Cut to therapy session. This confused a lot of people- everyone was asking whether or not her family actually died or if she imagined it- and she mentions how the nightmares have started coming back. Filler dialogue ensues.<br /><br />THey cut to the chase pretty quick. Few scenes at the salon, they go to the hotel. Of course the killer is already there (for some reason, he escaped 3 days ago but the police/family weren't informed until he's already there). More filler ensues.<br /><br />I'm not going to go on about what happens in the film, because I don't want to spoil it too much. If you want to know who dies, Horror_Fan made a post about it already. But on the subjects of deaths: they weren't that exciting. People in the theatre actually laughed out loud (an experience I've never had before in a horror movie, not even in When A Stranger Calls) during several of them. One in particular: the bus boy guy who gives the most hilarious 'scared' face I've ever seen. The only death involving any blood was Lisa's, and that was pretty scarce. Her throat is slashed, blood (if you can even call it that- it was practically black) splatters on the curtain-thing. The only other blood was on Claire when we see her body. Apparently, Fenton decided to stab her a few times after he choked her to death. Um, okay? The movie was one of the most clichéd I've ever seen. Let's see here.. obligatory close-mirror-curtain-BOOM! scene. Check. Twice, actually (you could tell they were struggling). Mandatory backing-up-into-killer. Check. There's also the backing-up-into-lamp scene, but you've all seen that. Oh, you say you want a birds-flying-away scare? Well, you got it! (Yes, they managed to incorporate one of those in here). And, of course, the we-have-security-on-all-exits-but-he-still-escaped scene. Shall I go on? I could.<br /><br />For anyone saying the characters weren't stupid, are you kidding me? "Oh, even though the massive alarm is ringing, literally saying PLEASE VACATE THE BUILDING, and 3 of my friends are missing, I'm going to go upstairs to get my wrap." These characters were some of the most flawed and stupid characters ever. The only likable character - Lisa - made one of the most stupid moves in the movie. "Oh, I just realized the psycho-teacher is here! I must leave my strong boyfriend behind to run off by myself to warn her! Oh, shoot, the elevator is being to slow? Guess I'll take the stairs and run off into the construction site!" Ugh. By the end of the film, they all deserved to die. The only death anyone felt any remorse for was Donna's boyfriend (I can't even remember his name- is that bad?), and by that time, the audience was completely drained out of this scareless, clichéd film.<br /><br />There were SOME positives- the acting was decent for the most part, and it was well-shot. But that's about it.<br /><br />I'd give it a 1/5, and that's being generous. Just for the laughs (and believe me, the audience had a few), and Brittany Snow.<br /><br />Oh, and the reaction was bad. Very bad. People were boo-ing after the movie ended and buzz afterwards was very negative. Expect bad legs for this one.

"Markham," says urbane gentleman crime-solver Philo Vance (William Powell) to the district attorney, "I'm coming more and more to the belief that Archer Coe was killed in this room. That poker, this dagger sheath, now these fragments...it's all here." "But Vance," Markham says, "do you mean to tell me a dead man walked upstairs?" "I'm not trying to tell you anything but the facts," Vance says. "This is the most remarkable case in my experience." <br /><br />We're sympathetic. Wealthy, arrogant Archer Coe, disliked it seems by all who knew him, had been found slumped in a chair in his bedroom, pistol in his hand and a gunshot wound to his head. But wait. Further examination shows Coe had been hit hard by a blunt instrument that fractured his skull. Then there's the dagger wound in his back. Complicating matters is that Coe's bedroom door and windows all had been locked from the inside. Coe was no suicide; this was murder. But how could the killer have escaped? What was the specific motivation since there are so many suspects? And why was Coe's brother, Brisbane Coe, found dead in the main-floor closet? <br /><br />The Kennel Murder Case, now 73 years old, still provides a stylish look at the old locked- room classic whodunit. What makes it work as well as it does is, first, the mystery is complicated and clever, but still is logical. Second, is the amusing, assured performance of William Powell. Consider his work as Philo Vance as something as a rehearsal for his great performances as Nick Charles. Few things escape Vance. He uses his wits to piece things together. He's also good company. Powell was a star in the Twenties and moved steadily upward in status and popularity when the talkies took over. His intelligence, style and effortless sophistication have made him one of the most contemporary-seeming of actors from the past. <br /><br />Also pleasant is seeing a few other great faces. There's Mary Astor as Hilda Lake, the young, resentful and potentially rich ward of Coe; Paul Cavanaugh as a titled Brit hovering around Hilda; Helen Vinson with her notably sultry and selfish manner (watch her really do her stuff in Vogues of 1938); Etienne Giraudot, a small elderly man as the fussy Dr. Doremus, whose job as coroner and medical examiner keeps taking him away from his meals; and Ralph Morgan as Archer Coe's private secretary. This movie has a high percentage of middle-aged men without an ounce of fat who can wear snug, English-cut tailored suits with ease. Most of all is Eugene Palette, with his noble belly and gravel voice, as Detective Sergeant Heath. Sergeant Heath and Vance are long-time acquaintances who actually seem to like each other.

Once again Canadian TV outdoes itself and creates another show that will go unwatched after its premiere episode. <br /><br />Last time I remember sitcoms were supposed to induce a reaction we in the business call laughter. How funny is it to beat the stereotype of all white people thinking that all Muslims are terrorists? OK maybe one joke just to stick it to the masses. But not 30 minutes. It's called beating a dead horse. Even SNL would know to give up after a commercial break.<br /><br />Also, let's have a little conflict in these scripts. Will she or won't she be able to serve cucumber sandwiches to break the fast on Ramadan? When will Ramadan start? Ohhhhh this is Emmy winning stuff here. <br /><br />And the characters! What characters?! They are all cardboard cut-outs without anything interesting to make us want to follow them from one situation to the next. That's the point of the situation comedy. We need to have strong, interesting, dynamic characters so that we are constantly drawn to the TV set each week. We have to care about these characters to worry about what trouble they're going to get into next week. If I never see these characters it'll be too soon. Thankfully I can't remember any of their names (note to CBC - that's not a good sign).<br /><br />And the acting is so bland. It's more so a problem in casting than in the actors. None of these people actually embody the characters they play. They just seem to act their part as though they were working on a movie of the week. Sitcoms require actors who live and breathe that character - make us fall in love with them - where they become inseparable from the character the portray. Watch any American sitcom and you'll see how easily identifiable characters are. Part of the problem is that the actors seem to treat this project as though it might be a platform to bigger and better things instead of being their one big character of a lifetime for whom they will spend the next 8 years portraying. That level of disinterest in the characters and the project shows. But to be honest, considering the lame concept and the horrible writing, there's not much for the actors to do but say their lines and try not to bump into any furniture. As another commenter mentions, this seems like a TV movie and not a sitcom.<br /><br />And the directing or lack there of! What can I say, Canada has so much talent, look at what the Comedy Channel is doing with Puppets Who Kill and Punched Up. Look at the Trailer Park Boys (not the movie cause it bit the big helium dog). Look at any American show to see the potentials our talent as that's where many of our stars go to find decent work.<br /><br />Give credit to the CBC, they really know how to build publicity for a non-event. Remember "The One"? No - well don't even try to learn any characters names in this show, as it's sure to go the way of the dodo.<br /><br />Let's all hope for a full blown ACTRA strike so that nothing like this emerges from the Ceeb for a good long while.

Anne Bancroft plays Estelle, a dying Jewish mother who asks her devoted son (Ron Silver) to locate reclusive one-time movie star Greta Garbo and introduce the two before Estelle checks out for good. Might've been entitled "Bancroft Talks" as the actress assaults this uncertain comedic/dramatic/sentimental material for its duration. Hot-or-cold director Sidney Lumet can't get a consistent rhythm going, and Bancroft's constant overacting isn't scaled back at all by the filmmaker--he keeps her right upfront: cute, teary-eyed and ranting. Estelle becomes a drag on this scenario (not that the thinly-conceived plot has much going on besides). Silver and co-stars Carrie Fisher and Catherine Hicks end up with very little to do but support the star, and everyone is trampled by her hamming. *1/2 from ****

A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.<br /><br />But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.<br /><br />One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff.

Confounding melodrama taken from a William Gibson story, produced by John Houseman and directed by Vincente Minnelli! Richard Widmark heads up posh, upscale rural nervous asylum, where his loose wife battles with self-appointed queen bee Lillian Gish, and Widmark himself gets the straying eye for staff-newcomer Lauren Bacall, who is putting her life back together after the death of her husband and child. Facetious and muddled, set in an indiscriminate time and place, and with a "David and Lisa" love story hidden in the plush morass. Widmark and Bacall do have some good chemistry together, but this script gives them nothing to build on. For precisely an hour, most of the dialogue concerns what to do about the drapes hanging in the library (this thread isn't used as symbolism, rather it's a red herring in a non-mystery!). The picture hopes to show the loggerheads that disparate people come to when they're working in the same profession and everyone thinks their opinion is right, but unfortunately the roundabout way Minnelli unravels this stew is neither informative, enlightening nor entertaining. ** from ****

If any style of film could be called my "guilty pleasure", it'd be this generic fantasy type. Guilty is the wrong word for it, though, as I'm pretty pleased to be an escapist from time to time. "Stardust" is good stock fantasy, the likes of which one should expect from Neil Gaiman (or Gaiman adaptation, as it were). It isn't the visual dream-scape of Mirrormask, it isn't the adult pretension of Pan's Labyrinth, and it isn't the fun-loving classic The Princess Bride, but it contains just what the fantasy-lover is familiarized enough with to be completely comfortable during the entire viewing. Fantasy lovers should rejoice--special effects work has finally become good enough and cheap enough that this stuff is in regular production now.<br /><br />The story of Stardust involves a young man named Tristan who, in order to gain the love and approval of the most beautiful girl in their small town of Wall, goes on an adventure to retrieve a fallen star. To make things difficult, however, Tristan's fallen star is actually a woman named Yvaine, and he's not the only one looking for her... some witches have their greedy eyes on the immortality the star's heart can give, and a brother's feud over the magic kingdom leads murderous princes in her direction.<br /><br />From there it's all pretty predictable, but it involves some attractive fantasy elements, some warm-hearted commentary on the nature of love, and the best part, Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. On that note, DeNiro's performance is spot-on... it's not the excessive lisp that most actors use to portray gay people, but a surprisingly effective one from someone used to being seen as a rough-and-gruff typecast character (thus the ongoing joke surrounding his character matching DeNiro's own opening up into alternate forms of acting). DeNiro hasn't been so unique to his own image since Brazil, and that's saying something.<br /><br />Stardust is the type of movie, perhaps, that will subsist on children's and fantasy-lover's shelves for a long time. I can't say it offers anything new, but it's not really there to. It's actually those most familiar with it's tropes that will enjoy it the most.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

"I thought I'd be locked away in a padded cell and they'd throw away the key" (Thus is a paraphrased snatch of dialogue from "State of Mind".<br /><br />One wonders in what tangled forest Paula Milne and her co-writer found the magic mushrooms they must have eaten, to create this feeble "whodunnit" and bring such rubbish to our screens. A padded cell should indeed be left available.<br /><br />Niamh Cusack did her best, (as did the other actors) but surely her talent deserves a better vehicle than this. The height of absurdity has been reached, and this particular "State of Mind" is best buried and forgotten, and certainly not just "placed in a box and locked away in a drawer".

What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful. <br /><br />

I think that this movie is very neat. You eithier like Michael Jackson or you don't, but if you like him then you have to see this movie. I think that it is a very neat film with great song play and good imagination. Not to mention the film center piece Smooth Criminal which has some of the best dancing you will every see.

Please Don't hate me but i have to be honest, watching this movie, i had a lot of fun,,<br /><br />It's a Movie with a Stupid Cast and Stupid Songs!!!<br /><br />Unnecessary songs!!! Mehbooba... A Total Insult to the Original One Holi.... well.. it was OK! due to the Tradition Every Movie got to have one!! Chad Raha hai Nasha Whatever... Very UNNEEDED stupid Song jee Le... Sounded like a Playboy Song Stupid Song...<br /><br />Other than Songs. The Movie was OK This was Ram Gopal Verma's Own Adaptation... If you think like that you will like this movie<br /><br />Well this movie only Depends on the Viewer and on his judgement whether he/she thinks this movie is total Copy He/She would want to hit her Head on the Cinema Seat OR if he/She Thinks of the Directors Own Look he/she would be relaxed and take a look at this movie<br /><br />Anyways I looked at both ways i would Congratulate and Abuse Ram Gopal for this Disaster that he made...<br /><br />Well Some other Things that bothered that The CAST was Incredibly Bad<br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan As Babban/Gabbar (Amitabh in his own Movie Remake Funny what was the Director Thinking) Ajay Devgan As Heero/Veeru(Bobby Deol Could have been Better) Prashant Raj As Raj/Jai(Abhishek was Meant for this role Despite doing a Special Appearance in the Mehbooba song) Sushmita Sen As Radha/Durga(Jaya Bachchan was Right Tabu was Right for this Role) Nisha Kothari As Ghungroo/Basanti(I think Esha Deol would have been Great) Mohanlal As Narishma/Thakur(Mohanlal Is So Cute....Oops Sorry hehehehe, He Was OK I could not Think of anyone)<br /><br />The Movie would have Even FAIRED a LIttle if the Cast was OK<br /><br />I movie wasn't even exciting, the movie was just OK , Just for watching<br /><br />The Overall Rating<br /><br />Direction... 8/10 I Got to him some credit Cinematography... 9/10 Script... 3/10 BAD Scripting Songs... 5/10 Unnecessary in the Movie, could have been better, Easy on the Ears on to be played in PC's and IPod's and Stuff Cast... 1/10<br /><br />Total ... 3/10<br /><br />Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi from Pakistan

Such a long awaited movie.. But it has disappointed me and my friends who had gone to see the movie on the first day.. From the trailers it looked like a action movie, but it turned out to be a out & out comedy(a bad comedy). But one thing that deserves appreciation is the acting by these professional actors, they've done their part of the movie very well. Good acting, but i don't think that can save the movie.. India has been shot beautifully. Kerala, Rajasthan, (Ladakh?) were all saturated with color, alright. Nevertheless the way the intrinsic beauty of these places was shot made me want to find out exactly where those places were and when I could go there ;-)<br /><br />Action sequences were shot very shabbily, no one could make out head & tail of the stunts, they've used Akki(akshay kumar) very well but could've been done much much better..<br /><br />Animation is the worst i've seen in recent movies(90's movies had better animation scenes i guess(initial scene where the car is falling off 'flying should be better word' the road into lake).<br /><br />And the movies name has been mentioned nearly every 20 to 30 mins, just to make sure audiences don't forget the movie name i guess..

What an awesome movie! It was very scary, great acting, well-written, nice plot twists, interesting characters, very good direction, and a surprise ending that will leave you with a smile on your face. This is one popcorn horror flick that may not be appealing to non-horror fans, but is still (nonetheless) one of the best thrillers out there today! I highly recommend it to ONLY fans of:<br /><br />1) The horror genre<br /><br />OR<br /><br />2) An actor or actress featured in it.<br /><br />*** out of **** stars!<br /><br />PS- I am sick and tired of people comparing this, and other modern horror movies, with SCREAM. Ya know what, they didn't WANT to be like SCREAM. Everyone's like "Oh, they copied SCREAM!". Well, if I am not mistaking, SCREAM also copied other movies too! In fact, just about EVERY horror movie copied an earlier one. SCREAM, however, was a good film. But, still... stop comparing and enjoy it for what it is!<br /><br />GO AND RENT THIS ONE!<br /><br />

Friz Freleng's 'Rumours' is an excellent Private Snafu cartoon that warns against spreading panic-inducing rumours during wartime. Produced, as were all the Snafu shorts, to be shown to military audiences as entertaining instructional films, 'Rumours' is extremely imaginative and crams tons of ideas into its very brief lifespan. When Snafu starts a rumour about a bombing, it escalates into an eventual rumour that America has lost the war. This is illustrated brilliantly by way of a long, rubbery piece of baloney and several strange, fictional creatures who come back to haunt Snafu with ever more terrible news about his country's military. 'Rumours' is inventive, fast paced and funny, all of which help to overshadow the rather laboured, "don't badmouth the military" message. It stands up as one of the best of the Private Snafu shorts.

A fashion designer trips over a cat and falls into a pool, hitting her head on something floating on the surface. With rather cheesy effects (this was a TV movie) she floats up out of her body. She floats through a tunnel of rings of swirling orange smoke, and black rigid figures tip into her view (they look like the mannequins in her apartment). I almost thought I was watching a Jess Franco movie.... As her friends revive her, a black arm grabs her by the wrist, and she has to struggle to get loose. When she is revived, she remembers everything, and has a nasty bruise on her forearm.<br /><br />Shortly thereafter, she nearly gets hit by an out-of-control car that comes up on the sidewalk behind her. On Halloween, she decides with her boyfriend to go to Mexico for a vacation. When she gets there, she's surprised to find it's the Day of the Dead. They're annoyed by another American tourist who keeps following them, and he almost drowns them.<br /><br />The designer is encouraged to join a group of people who've had near death experiences. They've all experienced the tunnel, but not the black figures or the repeated near escapes from death. One of them has, and he's very anxious. She's also encouraged to meet with a psychic.<br /><br />A Doctor tells her about people he calls "Walkers" (the name of the novel this was based on). They're people who supposedly died of one cause that, when examined, prove to have died of another cause. Thus it's like they continued walking around after dying until they died again, but he blames it on poor record-keeping.<br /><br />I watched this on the 102 minute video, and it felt awfully long. I can't imagine that there's actually a 192 minute version! Perhaps if it was meant to be watched over two or more nights on TV it would better be watched that way than in one sitting.<br /><br />I've only read one Gary Brandner novel, Floater, and if it is representative of his work, he's not the most original of writers. Floater had the common plot of: picked on kid kills people in revenge. Even the variation was pretty common: picked on kid dies and kills people years later in revenge from beyond the grave. And in fact it has a point in common with this movie, in that the kid practices astral projection, and when he is drowned he floats up out of his body as here. I don't know how closely From the Dead of Night follows his novel Walkers. I understand the Howling movies don't bear much resemblance to his novels.<br /><br />It's quite a slow movie, and the special effects and cinematography are really held down by the (presumably) low budget and made-for-TV shortcomings. There are a lot of easily recognizable character actors in it. It also feels very dated, more early to mid 1980s than 1989. I found it to be boring. A much better low-budget movie covering similar subject matter that I don't think has dated as badly is Sole Survivor (1983) (arguably the inspiration for the 2000s Final Destination movies). It blows From the Dead of Night away.

Best animated movie ever made. This film explores not only the vast world of modern animation with absolutely boggling effects, but the branches of the human mind, soul, and philosophy. The story features a family of cats, where in the big sister dies, the younger brother sees this and rescues her body, but when she awakens she is left without a soul. So, the two sibling cats embark on a journey to find it. I have related this journey to many things. The history of the world, the bible, the cycle of life, and every time I watch it I discover more and more hidden themes and metaphors. If you aren't so into the physiological aspect of it then, you will still adore it. The animation is superb, and the creative scenes will have you attached to the screen. For example, the ocean freezing in time, god eating soup out of the earth, a strange and slightly SNM retelling of Hansel and Gretel. To conclude, Cat Soup is an absolute treat for anyone.<br /><br />PS- Not for kids, gratuitous violence included.

I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.<br /><br />I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.<br /><br />It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)<br /><br />The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.<br /><br />The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.<br /><br />Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.<br /><br />I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.<br /><br />Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).<br /><br />To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!<br /><br />Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.

I've read some terrible things about this film, so I was prepared for the worst. "Confusing. Muddled. Horribly structured." While there may be merit to some of these accusations, this film was nowhere near as horrific as your average DVD programmer. In fact, it actually had aspirations. It attempted something beyond the typical monster/slasher nonsense. And by god, there are some interesting things going on.<br /><br />Ms. Barbeau is a miracle to behold. She carries the film squarely on her shoulders.<br /><br />This is not to say that it's a masterpiece. UNHOLY ultimately collapses under the weight of its own ambition. There are just too many (unexplained) subplots trying to coexist. And the plot loopholes created by time travel are never really addressed: for example, if Hope knows that her mother is evil and that she will ultimately kill her brother, then why doesn't she just kill Ma in the film's very first sequence? Seems like it would have beat the hell out of traveling into the future to do it.<br /><br />Still, I give UNHOLY points for trying. A little ambition is not a bad thing.

Why are the previews so blah for a movie that is so awesome!! Everyone should know what an excellent movie this is. It is engaging and funny from moment one, original, and well-acted. I wish the movie was doing itself as good press as it deserves!<br /><br />For anyone that loved The Princess Bride, Labyrinth, and other truly funny and original fantasy adventure, this is one of the great ones. Robert DeNiro is hysterical. Relative newcomer Charlie Cox is an incredible leading man. Claire Danes is fantastic as always. Michelle Pfiefer is making quite a splash with her recent returns to the screen. There are also a lot of wonderful moments from minor characters...even down to facial expressions.

This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.<br /><br />One and half stars.

Remade today, this film would be a very creepy, very disturbing dark comedy. Stalking, obsession, and a web of lies and manipulations are given a 1948 gloss of aren't-they-cute harmlessness. Drake plays the stalker, an unabashed user of people, alternately pathetic and manipulative, Grant plays the stalking victim, alternately angry and oblivious.<br /><br />Vastly disturbing; I haven't been able to look at classic romances with the same suspension of disbelief since.<br /><br />

I enjoy watching people doing breakdance, especially if they do it as well as in the best scenes of this movie which takes you to a disco club called "Roxy". Especially at Christmas time, because there also appears a "MC Santa Claus".<br /><br />Even if this is an old film, and even if I have videotaped it from TV, when the State Movie Archive of Finland showed this in the summer of 2004 on their own big screen, I went there to check it out. It's much more enjoyable on big screen than on TV.<br /><br />Even if many people here think that watching this on big screen is a waste of money for the ticket cost, I disagree with this and I think that when I paid my ticket, I got the money's worth by seeing this, as it is on big screen, especially seated on front row of the cinema, an unforgettable experience, and much better than just on video.

I saw this movie when it came out when I was 17 years old and into classic rock (still am)... <br /><br />I never liked opera before because I hate soprano voices, but he changed all that. He was adorable in the movie and had such an amazing voice. <br /><br />I heard on CNN that he died tonight at home of pancreatic cancer, he will be missed, and he definitely left his mark on this world.<br /><br />I hope to buy this movie if I can find it, watch and enjoy. *smile* Maybe I should head over to Amazon.com and have a look before it's sold out.

No-nonsense Inspector Hollaway (a solid turn by John Bennett) investigates the disappearance of a famous thespian and uncovers the wicked past history of a creepy old house. First and most mundane tale, "Method for Murder" - Successful author Charles Hillyer (nicely played by Denholm Elliott) is haunted by images of the murderous fiend he's writing about in his latest book. Although this particular outing is too obvious and predictable to be anything special, it does nonetheless build to a real dilly of a genuine surprise ending. Second and most poignant anecdote, "Waxworks" - Lonely Philip Grayson (the always outstanding Peter Cushing) and his equally lonesome friend Neville Rogers (the splendid Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with the beguiling wax statue of a beautiful, but lethal murderess. Third and most chilling vignette, "Sweets to the Sweet" - Quiet, reserved and secretive widower John Reid (a typically terrific Christopher Lee in a rare semi-sympathetic role) hires nanny Ann Norton (the fine Nyree Dawn Porter) to take care of his seemingly cute and harmless daughter Jane (a remarkably spooky and unnerving performance by the adorable Chloe Franks). This stand-out scary episode is given a substantial disturbing boost by the exceptional acting from gifted child actress Franks, who projects a truly unsettling sense of serene evil lurking just underneath a deceptively sweet and innocent angelic veneer. Fourth and most amusing yarn, "The Cloak" - Pompous horror movie star Paul Henderson (delightfully essayed to the haughty hilt by Jon Pertwee) purchases a mysterious cloak that causes him to transform into a vampire whenever he wears it. This item makes for good silly fun and further benefits from the awesomely pulchritudinous presence of the luscious Ingrid Pitt as enticing vampiress Carla. Director Peter Duffell, working from a deliciously macabre and witty script by noted horror scribe Robert Bloch, maintains a snappy pace throughout and does an ace job of creating a suitably eerie atmosphere. Kudos are also in order for Ray Parslow's crisp cinematography and the shuddery score by Michael Dress. Highly recommended to fans of omnibus fright fare.

Seriously, what is THIS? Hooper has made such classic films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then he made this god awful film, what happened? did he dip into the crack a little too much? This film is about some dude named Sam who has the ability to set things on fire,(Firestarter, anyone?) the acting was godawful, the plot was rubbish, and the special effects were extremely rubbish, they looked like something from the 70's. Van Damme should be pleased that Derailed is no longer the worst film ever, and what was with the ending? he started glowing blue, turned into a glowing blue blob, sucked out his girlfriends fire, and the film ended. WHAT WAS THAT? HUH? when the film ended I hoped the DVD would Spontaniously Combust to save me from my pain.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM.<br /><br />DON'T THINK, OBEY, you'll thank me later.

This movie is Jackie's best. I still cant get enough of watching some of his best stunts ever. I also like the bad guys in this movie (the old man looks like a Chinese version of John Howard). Unlike some of Jackie's other work, this movie has also got a great story line and i recommend it to all of Jackie's fans.

I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End.

I happened upon this movie as an 8-10 year old on a cold, dark November afternoon. I was outside playing all day, freezing, and when I came in around 4pm, I had a cup of hot cocoa and sat down in front of the TV with a blanket. I was surprised to be watching a cartoon that wasn't all happy and silly--and was in fact dark, and moralistic. It captured my imagination. I'm sure it misses the text, and is abbreviated in all the wrong places for the Tolkien purist. But it still captures the spirit of the story, the choice to carry a burden for the good of others, the consequences of selfish, rash decisions, etc. The quality of animation leaves room for complaint. But the one place where this movie clearly rises above the new films is the voice characterizations. John Hurt is great in this. If you don't like how the character is drawn, look away, and just listen to him. His voice is extraordinary. I've seen it again many, many times and it always brings me back to that time, as a kid, thirsty for some magical adventure. It's for this reason I say 'lucky', the film is nostalgic for me so I overlook its shortcomings. But between John Hurt, and Tolkien's fantasy, it still reached me, and still does.

A brilliant Russian émigré devises the ‘Stanislavsky' system for winning at contract bridge - which makes him and his beautiful wife the GRAND SLAM Sweethearts of America.<br /><br />What could have been just another silly soap opera is elevated by fine production values & excellent acting to the status of a very enjoyable little comedy. A few unexpected touches are thrown in to keep the viewer's attention engaged - the way in which the principle cast is introduced as faces on a deck of cards; the introduction of a zany acrobat into the plot for no other reason than to enjoy a bit of lunacy; and the way in which a wide variety of different kinds of Americans are shown to be transfixed by listening to the broadcast of the concluding game.<br /><br />Paul Lukas & Loretta Young do very well as the Bridge Sweethearts - Lukas suave & sophisticated and Miss Young passionately loving and beautiful (even if the script keeps her puffing on a cigarette a bit too much). They are fun to watch, even when their behavior is not always the most believable or compelling.<br /><br />Frank McHugh gives another good performance as a relentlessly cheerful ghost writer who adores Miss Young. The delightful Glenda Farrell eschews her customary wisecracking persona in a small role as McHugh's ditsy gal pal. Roscoe Karns handles the fast-talking dialogue as a brash radio announcer. Diminutive Ferdinand Gottschalk is wonderful as a snobbish bridge expert.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize Dewey Robinson as a belligerent nightclub patron; Emma Dunn as a sob sister reporter; Paul Porcasi as the owner of the Russian nightclub; Charles Lane as a Russian waiter; and Jimmy Conlin as a kibitzer at the final bridge game - all uncredited.<br /><br />The film takes advantage of the fad for contract bridge which had swept across the country since its development in the 1920's. It expects the viewer to have a basic knowledge of the intricacies of the game and makes no attempt to explain anything to the uninformed.

The Howling II starts as it means to go on with a bizarre and surreal opening narration by Christopher Lee whose image is imposed over a moving star field, oh and a skeleton appears as well for some reason. He says "for it's written the inhabitants of the Earth have been made drunk with her blood. And I saw her sip upon a hairy beast and she held forth a golden challis full of the filthiest fornication's and upon her forehead was written, behold I am the great Mother of #an inaudible word I couldn't make out no matter how many times I rewound the tape and tried to, sorry# and all abominations of the Earth". This opening narration means nothing at all and is just downright bizarre. After the opening credits which are set over shots of Transylvanian architecture we get an on screen caption that informs us we're in 'Los Angeles, California U.S.A. City of the Angels'. I knew I was in for a long 86 minutes. It's probably not too long after the events of the original Howling (1981) and it's Karen White's funeral. After the ceremony Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) is spoken to by an 'occult investigator' called Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee) who says that Karen is a Werewolf and that she will come back to life. Ben dismisses such nonsense. But together with one of Karen's friends and colleagues Jenny (Annie McEnroe) he visits Stefan at his home. There Stefan tells them about Werewolves and how they can be killed, he mentions Stirba (Sybil Danning) who is the queen of Werewolves. Stefan also shows them a photograph taken at Karen's funeral of a woman named Mariana (Marsha A. Hunt) and that she is an extremely vicious and dangerous Werewolf who wants Karen. Stefan says he will stake any Werewoves through the heart with titanium. Ben figures out that Stefan means he will stake Karen as well so together with Jenny he travels to the graveyard where his sister's crypt is to stop Stefan. However lots of Werewolves turn up and attack Stefan, Ben and Jenny. They survive the attack and manage to find out that Stirba is to be found in Transylvania. They all decide to travel to Transylvania and stop Stirba and her Werewolves from taking over the Earth by fulfilling a centuries old curse. Once there they travel to a small town called Vlkava which means 'where wolves live' and meet up with the local priest, Father Florin (Ladislav Krecmer) and his small but loyal group of Werewolf hunters, hey what else can I call them? Oh, and a dwarf named Florica (Ludmila Safarova) helps too. They follow Mariana who they hope will lead them to Stirba. But Stirba knows of Stefan's arrival and has plans for him Ben and Jenny. Will Stefan be able to put an end to Stirba's plans for world domination? Will this film get any more bizarre or surreal? Watch it and find out. Directed by Philippe Mora this is one strange mess of a film. It's poorly edited as certain sequences just jump around incoherently. The single biggest problem is the script by Robert Sano and Gary Brandner based on his novel which is all over the place and doesn't make any sort of sense or introduces us to any proper characters that we like. Luckily it moves along like a rocket and is never dull or boring, unlike the original. Something strange or bizarre is always happening to keep the viewer entertained. Most people will probably hate it, but for those of us who enjoy 'bad' films this is right up there with the best of them. There are Werewolf orgies which are just freaky to watch. We get some cool Werewolf killing weaponry. The sets and locations just seem so out of place and I don't know if this was actually shot in Transylvania but it doesn't look like what I thought mid 80's Transylvania would. Stirba's castle is part dungeon, part Gothic castle and part modern luxury house. Stirba and her servant's costumes are very over-the-top, Stirba wears an outfit that looks like it belongs in a S/M video and to be fair to her she looks pretty sexy, and her minions wear skimpy leather clothing too. The special make-up effects range from good to poor, a dwarf's eyes explode, someone has their hand ripped off and a priest has some creature emerge from his mouth but this isn't a film loaded with gore, although there are plenty of effect sequences with Werewolf transformations and attacks. There is plenty of nudity as well as Stirba and her minions are a real randy bunch of Werewolves! I should also mention the music, the soundtrack is dominated by awful rock music that I hated and I ended up turning the volume down. Acting is weak all round and what on Earth was Christopher Lee thinking about when he accepted this film?! I wonder what he thinks of it. Basically the whole thing is a real mess, but I found it a fairly entertaining mess all the same. Impossible to recommend but it kept me watching through to the end. Speaking of which the end credits run over what appears to be deleted scenes and cut footage, it also features the same shot of Sybil Danning taking her dress off and exposing her breasts probably in excess of 20 times! If that's your thing.

I remember having a pretty low regard for a venture like this when it was first released. James "Not Jim" Belushi, a hammy kid actress, and a cheesy title in a John Hughes formula. You couldn't have paid me to see it 15 years ago. But, I got caught up watching it while wasting away a Sunday afternoon, and it hits me on a couple of levels. The fairy tale (part Pretty Woman, part reverse Pretty Woman), the very vulnerable, Elizabeth_Perkins_in_Miracle_On_42nd_Street -like performance by Kelly Lynch, the escapism. Over all, it gently pulls some very nice strings. It's pretty hard not to fall into the story, develop a crush on Kelly Lynch, identify with James Belushi, dislike the stiff bad guy boyfriend, and laugh at the Curley Sue lines. Has all the ups and downs, with a happy ending, and the kind of message you want to hear. Go ahead, waste your time on this movie, it's worth it.

Not much to say on this one. A plot you can pretty much peg, in the first 10 minutes. Nothing overly wrong with this film, very little action for an action film. There was a chance to explore the characters emotions occasionally. Whether an action film is the right genre to do that with, I'm still undecided. Sniper was one of the easiest films to watch without giving full attention to, as it had little twists and a straightforward plot. I was probably guilty of that, so with a second watch or with undivided attention it may be better.<br /><br />4/10 (but the best of my 4 out of 10's)

This has just been broadcast on BBC and I am absolutely delighted to have seen it. As the credits rolled, the cast alone made certain that I would give it a go. After just five minutes I was completely immersed in this beautiful film.<br /><br />Yes it was formulaic and predictable, but that somehow added to it's charm. The flashbacks to the forties were wonderfully placed and captured a feeling equalled in few productions.<br /><br />A real feel-good film, punctuated throughout with outstanding music. When it's released, I'll buy it!

Somewhat too long and going over the top towards the end, this comedy is an utterly delightful, never condescending or ridiculing look into the problems of a "power man", who likes to wear women´s clothes at nite.<br /><br />Julie Walters is lovely as always, but Adrian Pasdar is utterly credible and steals the film. He (she)is absolutely gorgeous in high heels and silk stockings.

Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.<br /><br />The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.

Starts really well, nice intro and build up for the main characters but after about 5 minutes, the charm is lost.<br /><br />The character is in the same mould as the main protagonist from American Pie and Loser without the supporting cast or innovative storyline that made the Pie movies more of a commercial success.<br /><br />Let's be honest - Heder's acting was pretty poor. Keaton, Daniels and Faris did their best but had no substantial plot or script to get their teeth into The movie just plods on without any pace or clear logical storyline justifying its length.<br /><br />The ending is about as predictable as they come - so predictable I've ticked the spoilers box for this one line.<br /><br />My advice: avoid at all costs unless you really really have nothing else to do/listen to or watch and even then you'll feel the producers just cheated you out of an hour and a half of your life.

The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them.

If you have plenty of time to waste ... it's OK. It moves at a good pace but to pull this movie off it would need to be a little longer with a little more background on the sitter. <br /><br />The acting is OK. Mariana Klaveno as the sitter does the best job and is the most believable.<br /><br />William R. Moses played a pretty good part as the husband.<br /><br />Gail O'Grady, as the wife, had a weak part and the reasons for her going back to work were not developed.<br /><br />The ending is sort of silly. Like most of these sitter movies ... there are parts that are interesting ... but overall it leaves you wondering why you spent the time.

A slow, tedious, and one dimensional movie! Good casting with clichéd dialogue, boring story line, and soulless direction from Mr Marshal! The conventional and predictable story of the most famous form of prostitution from the Asian continent, lacks heart, new insights, and depth. The lead character looks out of place due to her tiny phisique and phony looking contact lenses. The lexicon employed by the geishas sounds forced and a bit too sophisticated for their limited exposure in the ways of education. The story goes on and on for hours trying to convince you this little, boring, flat chested Asian girl is the ultimate Geisha, they actually say in the movie "She is destined to become a legend" i say hardy the case! The movie is just plain boring, it is beautiful to look at, it has a very few interesting moments as many as you may find by going out for cigarretes. Basically, if you don't believe the messenger you wont believe the message, and this girl didn't fill the shoe! Borin, boring, skip it!

For those that were interested in knowing how exactly humanity came to be encased in big red pods that make me crave pomegranate, there is the duo of the "Second Renaissance" shorts. I'm not exactly sure why they are split into two parts, especially since they're credited as one on the DVD (and are these shorts viewed on any other format but the DVD?), but they're informative even if they have a few gaps.<br /><br />What really makes this first part stand out, from the second part and the rest of the animations as well, is the parallels it shows between robot uprising and civil rights. Graphic homages to slavery, fascism, concentration camps, and mass graves are mixed with verbal references to the Million Man March and humanity's God-complex. In fact, "God" is never really referenced by these shorts, instead replaced by "Man's own image".<br /><br />As far as the shorts go in the collection, "The Second Renaissance: Part I" is by far the most effective in bringing out emotion. It's a sorrowful and disturbing view of the potential of humanity to become "the architect of its own destruction." Some may be turned off by some of the concepts this short rips directly out of previously established science fiction literature, but then again, that's basically what most of the Matrix series has done, and it's been a driving force behind its success.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

<br /><br />Presenting Lily Mars is one of a genre of film that sadly seems to have disappeared with the studio system. Ok now that you know my bias, here are some reasons I think this movie does stand out.<br /><br />1. Although the basic plot - Lily Mars (Judy Garland) goes to New York, becomes a star, and wins the heart of her director (Van Heflin) is a pretty stock Hollywood story of the period, the writers do vary the theme her a bit more than usual. Although Lily gets her big break when the star quits, she isn't successful and has to swallow her pride and go back to playing a minor role in the show.<br /><br />2. Judy Garland (enough said!)<br /><br />3. The supporting cast includes some really great performances. Spring Byington as Lily's mother is truely wonderful, as is Fay Bainter (the mother of the director - John Thornway (Van Heflin)). The standout supporting performance though goes to character actress Connie Gilchrist as Frankie, a one time actress turned theater custodian.<br /><br />Worth a watch for sure. One of those movies that are designed to make you feel better about the world and your dreams.

It's getting worse, the series is on a serious down fall. The first two sequel were acceptable and from then on we have seen a buch of really, really terrible movies. Robert Englund gives another great performance as Freddy but the rest of the cast can't act. The story is Alice, having survived the previous installment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? Check out the first three, miss the next three then watch the last one.

I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor.

Please, help the economy - spend your money elsewhere! The synopsis of the movie is: the First Lady has her husband assassinated because he was cheating on her. That's it. Undetected by anyone, except Cuba and Angie, she designs and implements a vast assassination conspiracy which no one knows about...and gets away completely free.<br /><br />Some specific points are particularly hilarious: While standing in front of the president, Cuba a deflects the assassin's bullet...which then enters the back of the president's head.<br /><br />Cuba and Angie watch film from a news camera, and they see...a clue. They go to great lengths to protect the film, believing that they are the only people that have a copy of this very public film.<br /><br />Cuba speaks with a presidential staff member. The PSM comments that there was no conspiracy. Cuba claims there was more than one person involved. The PSM then rants that the conspiracy includes the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA. Gosh, I wonder is the PSM is involved.<br /><br />Ms Archer, the First Lady, is a craptacular artist. Cuba can't make out a painting, and she says, "You're too close...stand back...look from a different perspective, look from my perspective." Can anyone miss THAT clue?

<br /><br />In 1970, after a five year absence, Kurosawa made what would be his first film in color. Dodes' Ka-Den is a film that centers around many intertwining stories that go on in a small Tokyo slum.<br /><br />The title comes from the sound a mentally retarded boy makes as he imagines he is operating a train. We slowly get to know more of the people in the small community, the two drunks who trade wives because they are not happy with the ones they have. The old man who is the center of the town who helps out a burglar that tries to rob him. The very poor father and son that cannot ever afford a house, so they imagine one up of their own. By the end of the film, the stories all come full circle, some turn out happy, others sad.<br /><br />Since this was Kurosawa's first color film you can see that he uses it to his advantage and it shows. Maybe too much. This movie goes in many different directions and it's hard to settle down and get into it. But don't get me wrong, Dodes' Ka-Den may not be Kurosawa's best, but coming from the greatest director of all time, it's much better than 99% of today's films.

I'll try to use words to describe this on.... <br /><br />I saw the original, which was good in its own way, but back then I should have feared a sequel.<br /><br />And I was 'afraid' when I picked this one up, but now that I've seen it, I have to say, it's even worse then I thought. Why these movies still get money still makes my mind spin. <br /><br />Let's start with the actors;they aren't all that good, but it has to be said, some make heads turn by being just plain awful. But what can an actor do with a script like this one. It's trying to be a copy of the original only this time the places have changed, any form of story is gone and any attempt of actually coming up with something that hasn't been done before, fails miserably. In a futile attempt to get it up-to-date, they try to make it exciting by making use of the whole 'big-brother' theme , but that has been worn out ages ago and offers nothing but a filler for between the beginning and the end. An attempt was made to try to save the movie by making a ton of references to the '83 original, but it just ended up being plain funny and sometimes a bit sad. In conclusion, if you have nothing , and I mean nothing , to do... go watch it, or play Frisbee... with the DVD.... by yourself. It'll offer you the same amount of fun.. I promise

Often laugh out loud funny play on sex, family, and the classes in Beverly Hills milks more laughs out of the zip code than it's seen since the days of Granny and Jed Clampett. Plot centers on two chauffers who've bet on which one of them can bed his employer (both single or soon to be single ladies, quite sexy -- Bisset and Woronov) first. If Manuel wins, his friend will pay off his debt to a violent asian street gang -- if he loses, he must play bottom man to his friend! <br /><br />Lots of raunchy dialogue, fairly sick physical humour, etc. But a lot of the comedy is just beneath the surface. Bartel is memorable as a very sensual oder member of the family who ends up taking his sexy, teenaged niece on a year long "missionary trip" to Africa.<br /><br />Hilarious fun.

'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.

A complete waste of time<br /><br />Halla Bol is a complete waste of time. The script and dialogues are poorly written, the direction is lacklustre and the acting borders on hammy.This movie was clearly aiming for the Rang De Basanti crowd but it falls far short of the mark because it does not have even one of the elements that made RDB connect with its audience_great script, terrific acting, good direction and a powerful social message that was never preached but shown.<br /><br />Compared to that near-masterpiece, Halla Bol takes a step backwards by resorting to scenes such as the hero taking a leak on the villain's Persian rug and the hero's mentor staring down bullets in a truck no less! All of this might have been acceptable in the 80s when there was a downturn in movie quality and bad movies like DivyaShakti and Phool Aur Kaante became big hits, but movie-making has become_should have become_more subtle and thoughtful of late.<br /><br />Rajkumar Santoshi is a capable director and I appreciate that he wants to give a social message in every movie he makes but maybe he simply does not know how to do it! He resorts to sermonizing without a care as to the audience's intelligence in understanding what he is trying to say. Maybe he should just concentrate on entertainment and leave the social messages to the Rakeysh Mehras and Aamir Khans.<br /><br />Even if you don't agree with everything I say, you will agree that throughout the screening you will be thinking that Rang De Basanti was much much better and Mr.Santoshi should have left the industry-bashing to Om Shanti Om. Industry-bashing? That's right!!Santoshi has depicted the industry as a place of back-biting, bitching and the casting couch which the hero happily indulges in with a starlet curiously named Sania. There are some people who will think that these portions show the real face of the industry. Don't believe everything you see!<br /><br />All in all, raise your voice against movies like this and don't spend your hard-earned money on this bomb.<br /><br />* out of ****.

As a another reviewer states Hanna's War is an outstanding film about an outstanding person, Hanna "Anniko" Senesh, who would become the Jewish Joan Of Arc. Unfortunately I diverge in opinion not agreeing that Miss Detmers as the lead is too beautiful to be taken seriously as a resistance fighter. In truth for me her performance is not held back by her beauty but makes it all the more stark in the terror of the sadistic brutality as a resistor she faces. Maruschka Detmers performance is brave, poignant, heartfelt or understood, and totally believable. In other words for me "In the zone." from the opening credits. If you would like to learn about the suffering of someone else for something they believe in and be impressively entertained give Hanna's War with Maruschka Detmers a try. My hat is off also to Ellen Burstyn as Hanna's mother a much well known and famous actress who could have made effort to walk off with the film. In that it is a team effort perhaps of two actress' but not an All About Eve situation.

I didn't really know what this movie was about when I went to the theater to see it (hype about the Satanism etc etc etc) as the trailers in the last movie I saw looked pretty interesting.<br /><br />Oh dear, Roman Catholic mythology? Not my idea of a good scare and honestly, I just felt like watching a really good, scary movie, not some loosely plotted religious farce that tries to score cheap thrills by having some chick getting bloody every few minutes!<br /><br />I'll try to keep away from the spoilers (!) but I found it very odd that an Atheist, who gets a string of rosary beads from a deceased priest, could suddenly end up with Christ's wounds (aren't stigmata supposed to be deeply religious??) I mean, she hangs out with losers, does loser stuff, behaves like a typical rebel et al, and here she is displaying the wounds of Jesus Christ?? Come on!<br /><br />Scenes of her crucified, head thrown back, screaming, blood everywhere, became rather tedious after seeing it a dozen times. It was neither frightening or scary, just repulsive. It did, however, become quite painful to watch - those flicking scenes were highly annoying...<br /><br />CONCLUSION: If your a Catholic, defintly don't see this. If you're not, still don't see it.

This film is massively boring and pretentious. There is only one good moment when a sailor shaves Mr Barney's(think the purple dinosaur-less pretense) eyebrow. The music is relentlessly cloying-it is sad that Bjork, someone with so much inner beauty, has been brought down to pretentious falsity in her art. The pomp of the tea service makes a beautiful ritual seem vapid. the mythology and culture are not respected in this film they are lifted. Not just from Japanese culture but from another filmmaker...(stay tuned) In a perfect "art imitates life" moment-the crew of the ship finds a giant piece of sh*t. Which is what the audience found in the theatre. There are some set pieces which are very composed and arty without heart---then…prepare for spoilers-I'm talking to you MR BARNEY.<br /><br />The Emperor has no clothes! Mr. Barney you have been outted! I have seen Jodorowsky's HOLY MOUNTAIN. And your thin, fake veil of BS has been lifted. You have stolen your images your style and your ENTIRE ART CATALOGUE from this man. Now that HOLY MOUNTAIN has been released FINALLY let's hope the powers that be at the Art Councils of the world STOP FINANCING YOU! Poor Jodorowsky-lost in a financial battle with the Beatles Lawyer when he is the Lennon/McCartney of film-making. And BTW while Jodorowsky is the Beatle-YOU ARE THE MONKEES! A cheap thin soulless rip off only liked by facile kitschy college freshmen. And BTW I am a filmmaker. If you are interested in making a reality film-I will legally fight you in a ring defending Jodorowsky-you, defending outright thievery.

The music and Laurence Olivier's sombre delivery set the tone perfectly for this outstanding documentary. This is still a must see for WW II buffs, descendants of the participants of that conflict, politicians who think things always go their way when they extend their foreign policy via the deck of an aircraft carrier (did you hear that George Bush?) and anyone else curious or needing to know the whys whos and hows of some aspect of that conflict. The 26 episodes are roughly in chronological order but can be seen out of sequence since they are more or less self contained. There is bound to be new insight for the new viewer because of the sheer volume presented. Actual footage of the battles is interspersed with interviews of those involved in the stories. Many of the interviews are with second line authorities, that is, support personnel to the main characters, privates, captains, secretaries, eyewitnesses and the like. You get a real upfront taste of what war is all about.<br /><br />I am presently watching the DVD version of the original television documentary. I strongly recommend this over the worn out, gaptoothed, overpriced VHS offerings available on eBay. I paid $120 Cdn for five 2-sided DVD discs. This new release includes bonus material and is in full screen mode. The menus are easy to follow, there is first a choice of which episode you want to view and then after selecting that you are given the option of various chapters in the episode or to play the whole episode. It is understandable with such a comprehensive presentation there is a tiny amount more of navigation in the menu but the impact of what you will see is not diminished after 30 years, nay, after 60 years since the war finished.<br /><br />I remember watching the first broadcast on the Buffalo PBS station just before moving from London in 1975 and wishing right from that time that I could have a copy. Now my wish has finally come true.<br /><br />See this documentary. Tell your friends. Buy a copy for your library. Remember and honour the sacrifices and challenges overcome by those from America, Russia, Britain, Canada and all the other nations and peoples involved in the final victory. What an eye opener.

Guys who-ever even THINKS about watching this movie has already got some disturbance going through their heads.. This movie has NOTHING to do with Jack the Ripper (incase you thought) its another B, i mean E-Grade movie comprised of a bunch of horny teens in certain sex scenes being watched just before they get their spleens splattered on a nearby tree. Its not scary, funny or amusing. If you really feel like gory stuff with no plot, then watch Cabin Fever, at least the director did not fall asleep midway through directing this crap.only watch this if you absolutely have nothing to do in life & the only thing on TV is Oprah Winfrey crying on the TV set.

Perhaps one of the worst teenage slasher films I ever did see. I'll start with the bad points of t he movie, which pretty much covers the entire film. First of all, something no one can avoid: TERRIBLE ACTING. I swear they picked up some random kids off the street based on how they looked. Secondly, BAD/UNCONVINCING CHARACTER WORK/DEVELOPMENT. You hardly even know half the kids who are killed in here. All you figure is that they deserved it one way or another. The scarecrow's character was overdone, and a cheap rip-off of the other great fantasy killers such as Freddy or Pinhead. Next: BAD DIALOG: The Scarecrow was full of horrid one-liners that would make you laugh, only because it was so terrible. Lines like "Let's go find some small animals to torture!" really just leaves you with an eyebrow raised. Last but not least: Next off: BAD CASTING. How old was the guy who played Lester? Like 30? The back of his head was balding for God's sake. There is much more I could say about this film, like it's cheap special effects, it's "high school film class" effort, but the point is understood. It's just bad film making at it's worst. As for what I found to be "good" in the movie: -Entertaining for those with low, low, LOW standards -Would help put insomniacs to sleep. -A very cheap laugh, or even a giggle.

I just finished "Dark Chamber" aka "Under Surveillance" and I'm stunned. Stunned, not by the film, but by some of the rave reviews I perused which influenced my watching it. The story was so ravaged by plot-holes and the majority of the acting so flat, categorizing it as a comedy seems appropriate. Seriously, I found myself shaking my head and laughing in bewilderment as I endured this movie.<br /><br />Justin leaves the confines of living at home with a pain killer-addicted mom to go live with his cop father despite Mom's warnings that Dad is no good. When a young woman is found murdered, Justin becomes suspicious of the tenants who reside in the adjacent apartments. With the help of a couple pals, he installs covert cameras to keep tabs on these folks. As the truth begins to unravel, Justin uncovers an unexpected secret.<br /><br />One positive point is that Felissa Rose is HOT! I would have generously slapped an extra star or two on here had she peeled down a bit, but no such luck. It would have been the film's potential saving grace. Eric Conley played Justin very adeptly, I thought, and I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever to see more of him in the future. <br /><br />The general premise of the film, although plagued by clichés, might possibly have worked had it not been for the ridiculously hollow "performances" of key cast members, most notably Alexandra Eitel (Kayla) and David H. Rigg (Justin's father). The horror! (pardon the pun).<br /><br />I have nothing against low-budget films. Indeed, I believe independent film is our only hope for decent film making in the days to come. I'll cut low-budget films quite a bit of slack when it comes to special effects, lighting, even musical score and the overall picture quality. I don't give allowances, however, for stick figure acting and a swiss cheese lover's script. There are a vast number of competently-made low budget films out there. Sadly, this isn't one of them. I can't help but suspect that at least a few of the reviewers who have praised "Dark Chamber" here are in some way affiliated with its production.

Gandhi my father is like viewing a book, chapter by chapter you read it(with your eyes) and you learn more about Harilal Gandhi and for that matter Kasturba Gandhi. So little is known about both of them and this movie describes them uniquely. The title misleads though, its as much a movie about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his son, as its about Harilal and his mother. And Akshaye Khanna and Shefali Chayya do full justice to their respective roles.<br /><br />Such movies are like leap years. They come after only so much time.<br /><br />Gandhi My Father, is also about an internal struggle, which is sometimes more difficult than any freedom struggle ever undertaken.<br /><br />Watch it, if you like quality cinema.

Following a car accident, a mad scientist(Jason Evers) keeps the head of his fiancee(Virgina Leith)alive. He then goes on the prowl looking for the perfect body to make her whole again. Pretty lame all the way around, nothing redeeming here. Also in the cast are: Leslie Daniels, Bonnie Sharie and Bruce Brighton. Someone should have helped put this one out of its misery. Let it die.

Denzel is about the only thing that is right in this movie.<br /><br />Maybe once in an early stage this was a better movie. Someone decided to cut some action and plot points into the beginning of the movie, giving away most of the story line in about the first 5 minutes. That and ruining whatever build up in pace and rhythm the movie might have had before.<br /><br />So first it confuses you and then it puts you off. The dramatization pushes beyond suspension of disbelieve.<br /><br />Of course there is that feeling of great injustice and anger that movies like this potentially manage to instill in viewers. Granted, it does that so if you are looking for that ... knock yourself out.

Such a pretentious and lame attempt to hipness. Diabolical script and dialogue and truly embarrassing acting. Really the worse movie I have ever seen(at the cinema). Nothing in my opinion saves this movie from being a total disaster. I saw it when it came out in a cinema in Brighton. People were walking out and there were more people chatting outside the toilets than in the auditorium! At the end there were boos and scorn from the meagre crowd left, which was quite sad as relatives of one of the main actors were present and looked really sheepish. However the movie was that bad that I really could not feel like that sympathetic with them. Everybody has to start from somewhere and their son started off his acting career with this truly awful attempt at 'Tarantinism made in the UK'. 5 years have gone bye, but sometimes I still cringe at the memory of that sad night at the movies! This is a movie with no redeeming features whatsoever! I gave it a 1 as 0 was not available. They should invent a 'shameometer' for everybody involved in this sorry mess of a movie. I know some of them have moved on to better things, the positive thing is that none of them could have sank any lower than this.

60 minutes in the beautiful Christina Galbo tries to escape the isolated boarding school she's brought to at the beginning of the movie. Is she running from some kind of fate too horrible to contemplate, a monster, black-gloved killer, or supernatural evil? No, she's running from a bunch of bullies. For the OTHER 40 minutes that follow, various figures walk around the school in the dark holding candelabras and looking alarmed or distraught, which doesn't say much in itself perhaps because great movies have been made about just that but if you're going to have characters walking around corridors and staircases you better be Alain Resnais or you better know how to light that staircase in bright apple reds and purples like Mario Bava. We know a killer stalks the perimeters of the school but his body count is pitiful and sparse and in the absence of the visceral horrors one expects to find in the giallo, we get no sense of sinister mysteries/unspeakable secrets festering behind a facade of order and piety and rightness which is the kind of movie La Residencia wants to be but doesn't quite know how to do it. We know something is off because girls are reported missing but we never get the foreboding mysterious atmosphere that says "something is seriously f-cking wrong here, man". When Serrador tries to comment on the sexual repression of the female students, he does so with quick-cutting hysterics and detail closeups of eyes and parted lips while high pitched "this-is-shocking" music blares in the background. None of the aetherial beauty and longing of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK to be found here. It's all a bit clumsy and aimless, with no real sense of urgency or direction. A number of people are presented as suspects but there's little reason to care for the identity of a killer that goes unnoticed by the characters inside the movie. I like the first kill, the image of a knife hitting target superimposed over the anguished face of the victim as a lullaby chimes in the background, but the rest is too inconsequential for my taste. I have to say Serrador did much better with the killing children and paranoia du soleil of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?

"I didn't want this to get complicated, Leese. I have to assume she's gonna read that." Fear takes flight at 30,000 feet in this taut, action thriller. An overnight flight to Miami quickly becomes a battle for survival when Lisa ( Rachel McAdams) realizes her seatmate ( Cillian Murphy) is planning to use her as part of a chilling assassination plot. As the minutes tick by, she's in a race against time to warn the potential victims before its to late.<br /><br />One of the many reasons I love this movie, is because of the chemistry between the two stars, McAdams and Murphy, who are also two of my top favorite actors. For example, the early scenes at the airport play more like a romantic comedy: two people keep running into each other.... I got to hand it to the two as well, for making a film like this work. Especially, Murphy's character.. Jackson who really seems to be sort of complicated in that way that he acts charming and innocent, yet he's trying to do his job and make Lisa feel trapped physically and mentally. I mean, in certain parts he really seems to be concerned for Lisa.<br /><br />A great thrill ride all the way through. A lot of films I would hate to see a prequel or a sequel about, but actually I wouldn't mind a prequel to this one, which would take place with Jackson surveilling Lisa. Favorite scene is probably that headbutt scene, because it was so unexpected. There was also that nice buildup to the famous 'pen' scene. When is she going to make her move? There was also that nice change in McAdam's Lisa, where she changed herself from being a victim into fighting back. I also loved the scene where she sits down in the food court and pretends to ask some ladies a survey about the food court. How great was Murphy with his whole weezing.....

Sorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!!

At a time in our culture where reality exposed as narrative is overpowering fiction as we know it on the small and big screen, "Apart From That" is a film that exposes real life moments that feel more honest, fresh and innovative in there presentation than I have ever seen before. The usual spoon feeding conventions are non existent in this film, leaving a content audience to sit and watch these real life moments trickle one after the other on the screen. While watching the movie, and even upon post contemplation, it is hard to believe that these amazing performances where actually that, performances. Every moment with the large cast of actors felt like the truth being exposed in their daily usual lives. Even so, "Apart From That" does not feel like a documentary or reality television, but instead transcends into a category of its own, with its unique cinematography and direction. I look forward to watching this new category of storytelling continue with other films by directors Jennifer Shainin and Randy Walker.<br /><br />This movie must be seen.

Don't get me wrong , I want to see marijuana legalized as much as the next guy. I shall digress now. The writing, though, was unrealistic. A PTA mom dealing drugs but adamant about her drugs getting into the hands of an underage person. Give me a break. The smugness of very pretty Mary Louise Parkers character was an insult to my intelligence. The characters were not at all likable. Basically, the plot lines went nowhere. I understand its only TV land . The hypocrisy was blatant. Mary Louise Parker is supposed to be a great mom and I am supposed to believe this.... WHY ???? I just got the feeling I was being preached by a show reeking of seediness. Its like saying its OK to cheat on your wife , but with someone of legal age status. OK not exactly the same thing , but I think you people get my point. That save the children stuff is wonderful for campaign trails , I guess, but it does not hold water in a cable sitcom about a suburbanite mom , as the local pot dealer.

This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.

I agree totally with another of the reviewers here who was pleased "For The Birds" won the Oscar in 2002 for "Best Animated Short," not this sick material, which is pretentious at best and appealing to anyone, of course, who has no belief in heaven or hell.<br /><br />The animation was good, but so are a lot of animated shorts. And, by the way, I love dark humor but this just was unappealing from the start.<br /><br />As for the story here: a guy walking around and surrounded by nothing but grey (symbolism here) is told by a TV set (which appears every few hundred yards away) that he is in either heaven, hell, or purgatory. Each time he puts a gun to his head and shoots himself after hearing the news. I guess that would be funny in two of the three instances.

I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of "Blackboard Jungle"). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - "Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies"!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film "Hell Drivers"). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.<br /><br />Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the "Firefly". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!<br /><br />Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!<br /><br />I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.<br /><br />Highly Recommended.

CQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: "CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker."

Yet another example of the complete waste of UK Lottery money. Just how commercial did this film prove. The Film Council ,who funded this miserable garbage should be stranded, on one of the London Undergrounds disused stations, for allowing this clichéd, dismal specimen to be committed to film, a half mutant thing made up of all the horror movies the director has seen and felt fit to imitate, most notably Deathline. Amongst its many sins is the quite obvious failure to make the lead character remotely sympathetic until the last minute. It's a little bit too late then! Surely all those development executives, at the UK Film Council, could have noticed this at the script stage. Add to this the terrible acting and the laughable appearance of the creature and you get a prime example of how not to scare.

Sadly, more downs than ups. The plot was pretty decent. I mean, nothing out of the ordinary, but it had a story, unlike the other modern horror flicks. The other good thing was the cast. I'm not saying that the acting was good, because it wasn't, but every actor/actress was hot and attractive.<br /><br />One of the downs are that the movie only become exciting after the first 40 minutes or so. The rest was quite boring. Another down (or you could consider it an up if you want) is the excessive nudity. All 4 girls were topless for a few minutes, and all the guys showed their butts for a long time. It's not that I'm against nudity, but this was a horror movie, not 'The Dreamers'.<br /><br />Unless you're very desperate to watch some guy take off his swimsuit and run around naked for a few minutes, or watch a girl get naked for no reason, or you're a die-hard fan of Debbie Rochon, than this is the movie for you. But if you're looking for a good horror movie, stay away.

This review is for the extended cut of this movie.<br /><br />I first watched Dragon Lord when I bought it on DVD many years ago. I always liked this movie and you can read some of the more positive reviews of it to get the general idea.<br /><br />That being said. I've always found the storyline a bit confusing. The movie is, after all, a love story. And it always seemed strange to me that a love story should end with a 20 minute fight scene.<br /><br />Well, in the extended version this is no longer so. The old "original" version begins off with a huge barrel-climb/rugby-like sequence which is the new ending sequence in the extended version. The opening sequence is Dragon(Jackie Chan) hanging around his house and pretending to be training and reciting whenever his father is around.<br /><br />Other sequenced have also been shift or prolonged in the extended cut and the story makes a lot more sense when you watch it. The pacing is also better and overall it just works better. It feels more like a love story and doesn't leave you asking questions about why it ends so drastically and dramatically as the regular version does.<br /><br />I suggest everyone who is a Hong-Kong cinema, or just plain Jackie Chan fanatic to get a hold of the extended version and watch the movie the way it was originally intended.(Or at least that's how I think it was intended. Why else would they make it and rearrange some of the scenes) When I was done watching it, I felt like I had watched a completely new Jackie Chan movie although most of the sequences were the same.