Datasets:

---

elmanz

/

reward-model

like 0

Seven Pounds stars Will Smith as Ben Thomas, an IRS collection agent who has an ulterior motive for meeting those who have gotten behind on their tax payments. Thomas caused the deaths of seven people whilst driving talking on his phone and the movie follows his attempt to try and atone for his, quite frankly, unforgivable crime.<br /><br />The story line is as subtle as a brick through a green house window. What you see is exactly what is happening - even the ending of Titanic was more surprising when compared to Seven Pounds. There is absolutely no twist whatsoever, there is never any confusion or doubt as to what is happening.<br /><br />Normally I only like Will Smith when is in full Bad Boys mode. The guy is at his best when sporting a gun, driving a Ford GT and saying "Aw Hell Nah" as whenever he tries to act serious it only comes across as a pathetic attempt at trying to gain an Oscar which he is so obviously is desperate for. This is probably the main reason why I wasn't looking forward to the movie, although here he is very understated. There are flashes of comedy but they are subtle, in fact it was the most understated Will Smith performance I have ever seen and for that reason alone he was fantastic and ironically should be nominated for a major award.<br /><br />The supporting cast were all grand too - Rosario Dawson looked pretty much at deaths door the whole film and Woody Harrelson and Barry Pepper were fine as where all the other bit players.<br /><br />Overall it is a weepy - but it isn't throwing all the usual clichés and sentimental violins to give you no other choice but to cry. There were a few times that even my hardened heart nearly broke. You will be hard pressed not to find one of the situations that does not relate to your own life which makes it seem all the more real.<br /><br />I would give it 8/10. The Will Smith show moves onto drama without all the desperation of The Pursuit of Happiness and comes of all the better for it.

The plot is plausible but banal, i.e., beautiful and neglected wife of wealthy and powerful man has a fling with a psychotic hunk, then tries to cover it up as the psycho stalks and blackmails her. But, what develops from there is stupefyingly illogical. Despite the resources that are available to the usual couple who has money and influence, our privileged hero and heroine appear to have only one domestic, their attorney and local police (who say they can do nothing) at their disposal while they grapple with suspense and terror. They have no private security staff (only a fancy security system that they mishandle), household or grounds staff, chauffeurs, etc. Not even, apparently, the funds to hire private round-the-clock nurses to care for the hero when he suffers life-threatening injuries, leaving man and wife alone and vulnerable in their mansion. Our heroine is portrayed as having the brains of a doorknob and our hero, a tycoon, behaves in the most unlikely and irrational manner. The production is an insult to viewers who wasted their time with this drivel and a crime for having wasted the talents of veteran actors Oliva Hussey and Don Murray (what were they thinking?). And, shame on Lifetime TV for insulting the intelligence of its audience for this insipid offering.

First of all, I don't understand why some people find this movie so anti-american. Sure, there are moments when the U.S. are accused directly, like at the segments of Youssef Chahine, Ken Loach and, to a certain extent, Mira Nair. But come on, they aren't naive accusations; instead, they are based on real and documented facts, and all the documents that the CIA released about Chile confirms this, for example.<br /><br />But returning to the film itself, what I enjoyed most on it is the variety of moods we find in it. We find children being educated for the respect of the all the people who died in the event; we find a unhappy couple that will be changed by the tragedy of that day; we find common people that have their feelings downgraded on the shadow of the events of September 11 and react differently to this, with dignity or frustration; we even find someone in the movie for who the fall of the towers grounds for a moment of real happiness.<br /><br />All these visions and others - as powerful as these or even more - make a consistent blend and help the spectator to have a glimpse about how different people spread across the world reacted to the events of September 11th. Thus, what we see is a panorama that is much more complex than whites and blacks, and this may make some people infuriated; but this is the world where we live, and in it there is no place for manicheistic ideologies, regardless of what presidents or priests may say us.<br /><br />Finally, I think it's a shame that there isn't even a release date for this movie in the United States of America. It's a shame because most of the american people is asking why this catastrophe happened, and this movie could give some clues to them. This film puts very clearly - differently of what some people of this forum think - that everything we do today will determine our future, and that the errors of the past will affect how we live today.

I thought I read somewhere that this was the last Monogram production, but whether that's true or not it doesn't matter, because if it wasn't, then it should have been. It's a deadly dull affair starring John Carradine with some gray in his hair to make himself appear like an older scientist who is experimenting with the aid of his young apprentice (Robert Shayne) in bringing the dead back to life. Every time their subjects are revived, they seem to have a whitish face like marble as they are lying strapped to the laboratory table (big deal). Carradine manages to restore his faithful dog to life after it's dead, and the mutt gains an unusual ability to walk through walls in a ghostlike fashion (wooooooooohhhh). That's about all she wrote.<br /><br />For an ultra-cheap Monogram quickie, this thing at least actually utilizes a more fancy-schmancy lab setup than is usually allotted. The funniest running joke in the movie is that the "older" doctor Carradine constantly refers to his "young" assistant Shayne as "m'boy" when, in fact, Carradine was actually 40 and Shayne was 45 when they made this!

It took a long time until I could find the title in a special videothek in Berlin, and I was lucky to find an english version with hollandish undertitles. I think it´s one of the best horrormovies ever. It seems strange for me that some people call this movie a black comedy. I must admit, I wasn´t able to laugh about, when I saw it the first time (and it was the same with the second time!) On the one hand Trelkovski seems so nice and even cute in his shy behaviour, but on the other hand he beats this boy on the playground and there is no explanation for that. But the most weired thing is of course his transformation in Simone Choule and the fact, that he doesn´t know, who he really is. His halluzinations are the most terrifying in this movie. Of course it´s all in his mind, but is it this flat that brings out this female side of him or was it also before he moved in - I think that´s an interesting question. His shizophrenic behaviour is hard to understand and it´s horrible to see his two sides or identities fighting against each other. The result of it is that he cuts his hand first and later jumps out of his/her window. But this terrible cry - does that mean, that all will repeat again and again and again... that his soul is in a cage or something? And these egyptian hieroglyphs and other egyptian stuff ? The fact, that he/she looks like a mummy in the Hospital - that´s not an incident, but a clue in my point of view.

This sci-fi adventure is not the best and by no means the worst. I agree with the statement that bad sci-fi is comical. Bizarre pink tinting and unusual special effects make this a favorite for the late, late, late show viewers. Space explorers on the planet Mars fight off strange giant amoeba-like monsters and other strange creatures. Pretty cool.<br /><br />The cast includes Les Tremayne, Naura Hayden, Gerald Mohr and Jack Kruschen. Get comfy and enjoy. Don't feel bad if you nod off for a moment. I agree with adding this to the list of cult classics to not miss.

I originally saw this very dark comedy around 2000 or so on cable TV. What a surprise and delight! Everyone is covertly armed in this movie! Dreyfuss plays the "mental" don (remember the New York don who was supposed to be schizophrenic? Art imitates life or vice-versa?). Diane Lane and Ellen Barkin are at their most beautiful and NOT to be toyed with! Thus proving that beauty and toughness DO go together! Then there is the great "bullshit" scene between Barkin and Jeff Goldblum (Rita and Mickey) where they verbally play off the world "bullshit." This film is both subtle and bald. For all the shooting, it can be a very quiet film. And, you have the opportunity to see several actors in their final or near final roles. Joey Bishop. Richard Pryor. Henry Silva. It is not a film for everyone. But, if you like a film that has a lot of word play and keeps moving without blowing up everything in sight, this is the film for you. Roger Ebert dumps on this film. He's flat wrong. THIS is a fine, fine film! Maybe just not one for Ebert. I consider it as a 10 because of how well it is done and how funny the script can be, while not really being a straight comedy kind of film. I like it so well that I bought it on DVD because it just doesn't get shown very much on cable TV. Now, it's all mine!

I should have known when I looked at the box in the video store and saw Lisa Raye - to me, she's the female Ernie Hudson A.K.A. "Le Kiss of Death" for *ANY* movie. Its almost *guaranteed* the movie will be bad (e.g. Congo)if Hudson is in it (with the exception of the Ghostbusters films, which were intentionally campy and bad). Despite my instincts, and the fact that I just saw Civil Brand, yet another cinematic "tour de force" starring Lisa Raye, I rented it anyway. After all, I ignored my "Hudson instinct" on OZ and ended up watching a very quality series so I figured I'd give this movie a chance.<br /><br />If you are a lover of bad movies, this is a definite must see! This has got to be the most unintentionally funny movie I've seen in a loooong time. The plot is fairly straightforward: Racheal's (Monica Calhoun) sister is killed by a band of brigands (Led by Bobby Brown!) and, like many an action movie before this, she straps on her guns ONE LAST TIME and vows to avenge her sisters death. To do this, she reassembles the titular Gang of Roses (supposedly based on a true story of a female gang) and they go out and exact revenge and, along the way, there's some subplot or something or other about some gold that might be buried in the town. One nice thing I will say about this movie is that from what I could tell, the stars did their own riding and they looked GREAT galloping.<br /><br />The funniest (albiet unintentionally funny) scenes? Look for when they introduce Stacy Dash's character or when Calhoun's character rescinds her vow not to strap on her guns (replete with a clenched fisted cry to the heavens) or Lil' Kim's character joking with Lisa Raye's character or Stacy Dash's character being killed or Lil' Kim's character convincing Lisa Raye's character to rejoin the gang or the Asian Chick or Macy Grey's character talking bout "The debt is paid", etc. With the exception of Calhoun's Racheal and Bobby Brown's Left-Eye, I can't even remember the names of the other characters cuz I was laughing so hard when they were introduced.<br /><br />If the director had gone for parody and broad comedy this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, he tries to take it seriously seemingly without first taking exposition, sound design (in his defense, Hip-Hop is notoriously difficult to work into a period piece), set design, script writing nor period historical research (was it me,or were these the cleanest people with the whitest teeth in the old west?) seriously. Usually when I see a movie that's not so good, I ask myself "Could you have done any better?" This is the first time in a long time where the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"

Pressburger and Powell's greatest movie. David Niven plays the RAF bomber pilot who misses his own death but is granted a second chance at life when heaven notices that he is AWOL and dispatches an angel to investigate. The scene when the young soldiers, men and women, black and white, all killed in action, arrive in heaven to be processed for eternal life is unbearably poignant. Watch out too for Roger Livesey, a deeply under appreciated actor, and Kim Hunter as the love interest (later, of course, Zira in Planet of the Apes). Incidentally, Steven Spielberg cast the actress who played the chief angel (Kathleen Byron) as the elderly wife of the eponymous private in Saving Private Ryan half a century later, an act that speaks volumes for his cinematic literacy.

wow this is the worst movie ever. the only reason i signed up for IMDb was so i could complain about this movie. i have never walked out of a theater or stoped a DVD but i almost stopped this one (and i should have). but i watched it all the way to the end just to get let down again with an absolutely terrible ending. wow if this is all that wes craven can produce his time is long up. I've never seen the first one and will never after watching this. its terrible acting with a terrible plot. hey looks someone is shinning a mirror at us lets go check it out. and the sad part is that when this movie came to DVD it was completely checked out at blockbuster forever. so i feel bad for all the people that saw this junk.

It's beyond my comprehension that so much rubbish from Norway has been remastered for DVD release, and still gems like this don't get a shot at recapturing their past glory. I give this a 7, not because it is very good, but because it is one of the few SciFi films made for Norwegian television. This film is nothing less than a film-historic gem that in so many ways foreshadows the first Alien film. And, my word, Blindpassasjer was first! Did Ridley Scott or anyone in the crew see the mini-series? However unlikely, the fact remains that the scenes are extremely similar. Okay, the budget is _much_ lower in the Norwegian film, but given that, it's a really well-done piece of work from the desolate age of Norwegian movie-making, which incidentally lasted until the 90s.

American film makers decided to make a film they think is Japanese. The characters all badly represented, the actors are not even Japanese and the set is cheap, unreal and definitely doesn't represent Kyoto in Early 20ties and 30ties. Who ever read the book understand that the script writers didn't add any extra value to differentiate the movie from the script. Worse, they even changed the original plot line with a few goofs. Rob Marshall is using for his two main characters two well known Chinese actors who joined before in crouching tiger hidden dragon. Marshall probably saw one Chinese movie and tho they represent Japanese culture. Seeing those two actors together again even makes the movies more ridiculous. Quentine Tarantino's last scene in Kill Bill #1 is ten times more Japanese made than that of this movie.

I tuned into this by accident on the independent film channel and was riveted. I'm a professional actor and I was flabbergasted by the performances. They felt totally improvisatory, absolutely without affectation. I could not tell if it was scripted or how it was shot and waited until the very end to see credits and then spent a half an hour on the IMDb to find this film. Do not miss it. I see that the writer-director also did a very fine film called Everyday People which I enjoyed a lot. The shame of the film business is that projects this excellent do not get the distribution and advertising that they deserve and live under the radar. This film deserves to be flown high and proudly. I urge people to look it up and watch it.

Very silly movie, filled with stupid one liners and Jewish references thru out. It was a serious movie but could not be taken seriously. A familiar movie plot...Being at the wrong place at the wrong time. An atrocious subplot, involving Kim Bassinger. Very robotic and too regimented. I have noticed that Al Pacinos acting abilities seem to be going downhill. A troubleshooter with troubles , but nothing more troubling than Pacinos horrible Atlanta accent. Damage control needs to fix this damage of a film. OK my one liners are bad, but not as bad as the ones in this film. This movie manages to not only be boring but revolting as well. Usually a revolting film is watchable for the wrong reasons. This movie is unwatchable. I did manage to sit through this. The plot ,if written a tad bit better, with , perhaps a little better acting and eliminating the horrendous subplot,and even dumber jokes, could have pulled this thriller out of the doldrums. What we are left with is a dull, silly movie that made sure it was drilled into our heads that Eli Wurman was Jewish. An embarrassment to all the good Jewish folk everywhere.

A meteor crashes into Crater Lake, the heat from the impact causing a prehistoric egg to hatch.<br /><br />Alright, so the plot is just trash. But despite its obvious low budget, this comes across as one of the most gripping and entertaining monster-on-the-loose films in existence. There are also some good moments of humor. In an age filled so-called 'monsters' which are no more than laughable men-in-rubber-suit creations or lizards dressed up in frills and forced to rip each other to pieces (cheap exploitation-style), it's refreshing to discover that the Plesiosaur in this little gem is an excellent Harryhausen-style stop-motion creature.<br /><br />Quite a hard film to find, but it's worth finding.

The Gospel of Lou was a major disappointment for me. I had received an E-Mail from the theater showing it that it was a great and inspirational movie. It was neither great nor inspirational. The cinematography was pretty iffy with the whole movie. A lot the scenes were flash backs that were done in a way that couldn't tell at times what they were about. The voices were often distorted for no reason. Also many of the people in the movie were far fetched. The relationship he has with his ex & son is never made clear. Also the whole movie has most him one way, and then all of a sudden BAM, he is cured and inspiring people. The whole movie seems to show that boxing is one of the things that is bad in his life, making him live his life the way that he is living it, but when he changes, he doesn't leave boxing, he teaches others how to box. Thumbs Down.

At your video store, you might find this gem.<br /><br />The human condition in modern times LA. No exaggerated drama, just a collapsing of events that might happen to any group of individuals over time.<br /><br />Helps you understand the joys and desperation of urban life.<br /><br />The direction and cutting are top class. Cinematography and music very much follows the mood and situation. And the CAST!!! <br /><br />Excellent casting and excellent acting. No one out of place or out of character.<br /><br />And it's NOT really as much a downer as you would expect. I gave it 7 of 10.<br /><br />If you havent seen it, DO!

A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.<br /><br />Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment.

First of all that I would like to say is that Edison Chen is extremely hot and that Sam Lee is looking much better than before XD! This is probably one of the most original movies I have seen so far; shows a poverty lifestyle background of a Cambodian. The Cambodian(Edison aka Pang) goes around killing people to survive himself; has done it throughout his entire life. Sam Lee's(Wai) duty is to capture the Cambodian for good. There are tons of violent actions but has a good story to it. The movie shows the struggles between those two characters; they both beat each other like angry dogs. GO AND WATCH PPL...STRONGLY SUGGESSTED!!! (GO HK FILMS)

Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.<br /><br />I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?<br /><br />I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.<br /><br />FART JOKES.

Simply put, this is the best movie to come out of Michigan since... well, ever! Evil Dead eat your heart out, Hatred of A Minute was some of the oddest, and best cinema to be seen by this reviewer in a long time. I recommend this movie to anyone who is in need of a head trip, or a good case of the willies!

There's so many negative reviews about "Stay away, Joe" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.<br /><br />Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.<br /><br />In my books "Stay away, Joe" definitely falls into the "so bad it's good"-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate "the trash value", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic.

This would've been a sure fire classic had they chosen ALMOST ANYBODY ELSE for John Abraham. This guy is an awful actor. Be it comedy, drama, tear-jerkers etc. He stinks. It seemed like at some point Priyadarshan realized this too, and pretty much had him jumping around like a monkey in order to make his solo-scenes a bit funny.<br /><br />He's the only noticeable drawback(there are a couple more annoying tid-bits) of an ABSOLUTELY hilarious movie otherwise. Best comedy to come along in Bollywood since Hungama, IMO. Like Hungama, it's a situational comedy carried on the shoulders of a brilliant screenplay and of course,Akshay Kumar. This is probably his best performance to date. He better be a shoe-in for best comedian at every award function. AK's always been good at comedy, but he takes it to a different level here. The body language, the facial expressions and just the way he delivers every line. It's a genius performance. The packed theater was going nuts for pretty much the entire length of the movie and I don't think I've ever seen such an atmosphere for a Bollywood movie here in USA.<br /><br />Garam Masala doesn't have one "lead" heroine. It stars 3 incredibly HOT+Beautiful girls who I thought did a fairly good job. Pretty sure they are all making their debuts. Paresh Rawal is solid as usual, although his routine wears itself out after a while. Rajpal Yadav is his typical annoying self(sick of his over-the-top act in every movie). Rimi Sen has nothing to do.<br /><br />Overall, definitely worth a dekho. I'd say it's FUNNIER than No Entry, and that's saying a lot. Could've been even better had they chosen someone a little more competent than John Abraham.<br /><br />8/10

Eyes of the Werewolf (1999) is a really bad movie. The premise was real good but the overall execution was just terrible. I wished the filmmakers would have taken their time with this project instead of rushing it into production. Some blind dude gets some new eyes, bad thing is that they belong to a mean old werewolf. Nasty things begins to happen to the dude as he turns into a cheesy looking creature. Can he find a cure before his hot girlfriend finds out? Who is that weird little troll who helps him out and what's up with that female cop? If you really want to find out, check out Eyes of the Werewolf!<br /><br />Not a bad idea for a movie. I just wished the filmmakers would have spent a lot for time in pre-production before they decided to shoot the movie.

All Dogs Go To Heaven is a movie that I have always liked. When I was a kid, I used to watch this every other day. It is underrated if you look at its IMDb rating and the comments of many people in general. This isn't a bad movie like many say, it is a very good movie. This is good and your kids will probably like it. Even though it's rated G, some parents may find this to be a bit violent. It is actually a pretty dark story, where the dogs are similar to mobsters who are involved in gambling, extortion, and even cold blooded murder. The movie follows a dog named Charlie who had escaped from the pound, is killed by his old friend, goes to heaven, but ends up coming back to earth. Many younger kids watching this movie may feel as though they are watching a big kids movie. <br /><br />There are some scenes that may scare little kids, but I'm sure they'll do fine. Every time I watch this movie, it reminds me of when I was a little kid. I'm sure everyone has a movie that reminds them of when they were younger, this is the movie that makes me feel that way. The performances from Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise are great, and this is the last movie that a little girl named Judith Barsi was in. Unfortunately, she was killed at a young age, which is a shame because she had so much potential and didn't deserve what happened. Now that I know her story, I can't watch this movie the same way anymore because her voice sounds so sad. <br /><br />The animation in this movie is great, the voice work is great, and the story is good, but a little bit different from many other kids movies. This was popular at the time of its release, but was over shadowed by Disney's mega popular The Little Mermaid. This is a movie that isn't conceived as well by adults, but if you're a kid, or if you grew up with this movie as a kid, then I'm sure you will enjoy watching it.

Maaan, where do i start with this god awful movie. Bad bad bad story telling. I do not know what the director was thinking when he made this movie. Namaste London was quite an enjoyable movie to be honest..even the soundtrack was good. But in this one..oh my good..for a movie which is supposed to be a musical one..the songs are soooo bad. AR Rahman should have been the music director. <br /><br />Given two great actors a much better job should have been done by the director. Even though the first half sucks, the last 30 mins of the movie are OK. Performances from Salman and Ajay save the movie from being a total disaster.<br /><br />Watch it if you have nothing better to do. The last good movie from Bollywood i watched ( and i do watch a load of them) is Dev D and Wake Up Sid.

I was lucky enough to get a free pass to an advance screening of 'Scoop' last night. Full house at the theatre and when the movie ended there was spontaneous applause. I didn't speak to anyone who disliked 'Scoop' although two teenagers sitting next to me sighed and fidgeted uncomfortably for most of the film. They were the exception though because everyone else including myself really enjoyed themselves.<br /><br />'Scoop' is a quickly paced murder mystery. A young female journalism student is unwittingly maneuvered by forces beyond her control into trying to catch a serial killer on the loose. Plenty of hijinks ensue as she partners up with a traveling illusionist and falls in love with a frisky and charming young nobleman.<br /><br />'Scoop' isn't a bad addition to the Woody Allen filmography. It isn't his best work but it is a very enjoyable and light hearted romp. I'd say it fits quite comfortably into being an average Woody Allen film, right in the middle of the pack. If you're a Woody Allen fan you'll probably enjoy yourself. If you're indifferent to his work then 'Scoop' might be enough to get you interested in seeing more. I don't think that anyone who dislikes his style of film-making and acting are going to change their mind. Woody plays the same kind of neurotic character we've grown so accustomed to although it borders dangerously close to forced and over the top in this film. While potentially aggravating for some who might find themselves wishing he'd hurry up and just spit out the words, Woody Allen fans know what to expect.<br /><br />Very good performances all around in my opinion although I found myself missing Ian McShane who is excellent and not on camera nearly enough. Hugh Jackman is great as the charming nobleman and I think Woody Allen has found a new regular star to work with in Scarlett Johansson. I think that with 'Match Point' this is their second pairing and she's just magic with the material that Woody gives her. Could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship! I'm glad I saw the movie and definitely recommend it. More sophisticated comedy than movies like 'Scary Movie 4' so if your brand of comedy is the latter rather than the former, 'Scoop' probably isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you like a touch of class, sophistication and fun, 'Scoop' is for you. Probably not the Woody Allen film I'd introduce to a newcomer but all others should give it a try.

This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what "dan7" in the computer graphic meant, said, "Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24." He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read "Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation" by Jim McKeever and "The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture" by George E. Ladd.

This movie is a remake of two movies that were a lot better. The last one, Heaven Can Wait, was great, I suggest you see that one. This one is not so great. The last third of the movie is not so bad and Chris Rock starts to show some of the comic fun that got him to where he is today. However, I don't know what happened to the first two parts of this movie. It plays like some really bad "B" movie where people sound like they are in some bad TV sit-com. The situations are forced and it is like they are just trying to get the story over so they can start the real movie. It all seems real fake and the editing is just bad. I don't know how they could release this movie like that. Anyway, the last part isn't to bad, so wait for the video and see it then.

This movie could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-, or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless and meaningless.<br /><br />It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+ year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.<br /><br />It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.<br /><br />The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.<br /><br />But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them. It's not really any better or worse than any other random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.<br /><br />Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.<br /><br />4/10

Jean Harlow and Clark Gable were a great on screen team and this may be their best movie together.<br /><br />Yes, Hold Your Man can be cheesy and predictable, but that's not what I love about the movie. I love seeing Harlow and Gable together and in this film they are simply wonderful. It is obvious that they really enjoyed working together and that is part of what makes this such a wonderful film.<br /><br />The witty dialogue, great script and attention to detail are the other things that make this such a good movie. I loved this movie the first time I saw it and on each subsequent viewing I always notice at least one new detail. To me, that is a mark of a great film.<br /><br />The dialogue and script are better than most movies from this time period (early 30's). I adore classic movies, but I admit that most of them are just average and at times don't hold my interest. Hold Your Man is one of the exceptions.<br /><br />This has a lot to do with the fact that Hold Your Man is a 'pre-code' movie. (The Hays code was not enforced until a year after Hold Your Man.) This movie could not have been made under the code. Well, it could have been made, but it would have been an entirely different story. Thank goodness the code was not enforced until 1934. Otherwise, we would have missed out on this gem.

From the moment the film begins, already there is a discrepancy. As this film takes place on the borders of Normandy and the middle East, and is also an international film, one would expect proper accents portrayed. This is not done as the majority of the cast sound American. Also, I find the acting to be rehearsed at best, the story line a little difficult to follow from the beginning. Who is who? Otherwise the film is very accurate in costume and scenery. If you want to see a movie to get a feel of what it was like in the past (albeit the lack of accents) then this movie is worth a rent. If you're looking for a movie as epic as Kingdom of Heaven, then look elsewhere.

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

Quite possibly the nicest woman in show business, and the sexiest, Debbie gives another fine performance here. Although her work in American Nightmare was far superior, she is still worth watching in this film.<br /><br />The cast is filled with your typical Melrose Place types, chiseled features and seductive curves, that I had never seen before. Other than Debbie, Laura Nativo was the only actress I had seen before, in the similar Delta Delta Die.<br /><br />The plot centers around a group of California arrogants who initiate poor naive Debbie Rochon into their clique. They tell her that they have a murder club, and that she must kill someone to be accepted. Debbie wants nothing more but to be accepted by these cool people, so she quickly kills a person, and now the group must decide what to do with her, after she fell for their joke.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Plentiful! Debbie Rochon occasionally has blood splattered all over her and all of the murder scenes are done in your face. Gore hounds will surely enjoy!)<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Plentiful as well! Debbie Rochon has several nude scenes as do many of the no-name actresses and actors. The pool party seems as just an excuse to get everyone naked; man and woman alike. Julie Strain also has a topless cameo but her character is gone after the first five minutes).<br /><br />STORY: $$ (Could have received a higher vote because the plot was very interesting and unique but the plot serves as filler between nude scenes. I understand that B-Rate films use nudity often, but this is borderline excessive).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (The acting is sub standard to say the least. Rochon is always a treat, easily the best B-Rate actress in the business today, but her character in American Nightmare was superior. Danny Wolske does a fine job as Debbie's object of lust but the other actors were nothing to write about).

I have seen the movie at the Viennale a few years ago, where the audiences liked it. I liked it as well, Summer Phoenix performance still haunts me, that´s why I decided to write a comment.<br /><br />The story unfolds in London around 1900, where a jewish girl decides to become an actress. She tries desperately to become one, but it isn´t before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being.<br /><br />There were certain reviews, were her performance was smashed, they accused her of being dull, not able to bring life to her character. I think that´s her strong point, that´s exactly what Esther Kahn should be and Phoenix makes a brave decision to make her Esther a rather boring girl. So her transformation at the end is more powerful than it could have been otherwise. <br /><br />The cinematography is great, the images of London around the turn of the century are very dark and sad, you can see how unpleasant life was back then. <br /><br />The only fault in my opinion is the length of the movie, you loose touch with the characters, after all it´s only about finding the actor in yourself, so there are no dramatic actions in the film. It´s Phoenix credit that we don´t loose the interest in the movie after the first hour.

I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.<br /><br />This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.<br /><br />The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.<br /><br />But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.<br /><br />If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very "delicate", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.<br /><br />Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a "delicate" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.

It's a road movie, with a killer on-board. Brian Kessler (David Duchovny), a sophisticated, urbane writer, wants to conduct field research on American serial killers. But, neither he, nor his girlfriend, Carrie (Michelle Forbes), has the money for a cross-country tour of murder sites, so they advertise for someone to share travel expenses. Who they end up with is a young couple, Early Grayce (Brad Pitt) and his girlfriend, Adele (Juliette Lewis), two better examples of "poor white trash" you will never find in all of cinema.<br /><br />Indeed, Early and Adele are what make this film so entertaining, as they babble, cackle, confide, muse, speculate, drool, and otherwise behave in ways I haven't seen since reruns of "The Beverly Hillbillies". Early's idea of California: "People think faster out there, on account of all that warm weather; cold weather makes people stupid". That's enough to convince Adele: "I guess that explains why there are so many stupid people around here". To which Early responds proudly: "It sure does". Early continues to instruct Adele about California: "You never have to buy no fruit, on account it's all on the trees ... and they ain't got no speed limits, and I hear your first month's rent is free, state law".<br /><br />But poor Early has some, well, mental problems, which become ever more obvious to Brian and Carrie as the four travelers proceed west across the U.S. As they enter the desert Southwest, with its beautifully stark landscape, "Kalifornia" starts to look more and more like "The Hitcher" (1986), and Early starts to act more and more like John Ryder, everyone's maniacal hitchhiker, whose terror seemed so unstoppable.<br /><br />In "Kalifornia", the acting is uneven. Duchovny's performance is flat. Brad Pitt is surprisingly effective, despite his overacting at times. Michelle Forbes is great as the avant-garde, photographic artist. But my choice for best performance goes to Juliette Lewis. With her nasal voice and heavy-duty Southern accent, she is stunning, as the naive, highly animated, child-like Adele.<br /><br />Toward the end, the film takes on a Twilight Zone feel to it, as our travelers enter a Nevada nuclear test site with a dilapidated old house full of test mannequins. The plot dissolves rather messily into unnecessary and preposterous violence, an ending that was somewhat disappointing.<br /><br />Overall, however, "Kalifornia" is an entertaining film, thanks to a clever concept, great scenery, especially in the second half, good cinematography, great dialogue, and that wonderful performance by Juliette Lewis.

Could anyone please stop John Carpenter from continuously and deliberately ruining his reputation? How low can you go? It seems this man has lost any self respect.<br /><br />This episode looks like it has been done by a film student, it isn't even worth beginning to talk about WHAT was bad, because it was just a borefest, directed by somebody with no talent as a filmmaker or without any motivation...<br /><br />Come on, Mr. Carpenter, please retire immediately with a rest of self-esteem and stop spilling out trash like this in a bad tradition from Escape from L.A. to Ghosts of Mars.<br /><br />Get drunk instead.

There's a legion of Mick Garris haters out there who feel he couldn't direct a horror film of quality if he had to. And, SLEEPWALKERS(..screenplay written by Stephen King)is often used as an example of this. I like SLEEPWALKERS, though I fully am aware that Garris just says F#ck it and lets all hell break loose about fifteen or so minutes into the movie. Forget character or plot development, who needs them anyway. It's about violent mayhem and bloody carnage as a mother and son pair of "sleepwalkers"(..feline-human shapeshifting creatures who suck the lifeforce from virginal female innocents, moving from town to town, living a nomadic existence, truly powerful)set their sights on a teenager who doesn't surrender without a fight. Before all is said and done, many will be slaughtered as a mother shan't tolerate the possible death of her beloved son.<br /><br />Garris wastes little time setting up those to be executed, as a teacher(Glenn Shadix), suspecting handsome, All American charmer Charles Brady(Brian Krause)to be someone entirely different from who he claims, gets his hand ripped off and his neck torn into. Charles lures pretty virgins into his arms, drawing their energy, in turn "feeding" his hungry mama, Mary(Alice Krige). The fresh new target is Tanya Robertson(Mädchen Amick), and she seems to be easy pickens, but this will not be the case and when Charles is seriously injured in a struggle(..thanks to a deputy's cat, Clovis), Mary's vengeance will be reaped on all those who get her way. Mary, come hell or high water, will retrieve Tanya in the goal of "refreshing" her dying son.<br /><br />Like many teenagers, I had a crush on certain actresses I watched in movies. Such as Amy Dolenz, I was smitten with Mädchen Amick. She's simply adorable in this movie and I love how she bites her lower lip displaying an obvious attraction towards Charles, unaware of his ulterior motives. I just knew that Mädchen Amick would be destined to be a scream queen, but this would never be the case. Too bad because I would've welcomed her in the genre with open arms.<br /><br />Krige is yummy as the menacing, damn sexy, but vicious and mean bitch who wipes out an entire police force and poor Tanya's parents in one fail swoop, in less than ten or so minutes. She stabs one in the back with a corn cob! She bites the fingers off of poor Ron Perlman, before cracking his arm(..a bone protruding), knocking him unconscious with his own elbow! She tosses Tanya's mom through a window after breaking a rose vase over her father's face! A deputy is stabbed in his ear by Charles(Cop-kebab!), falling on the pencil for extra impact. Poor Tanya is dragged by her hair from her home by Mary, driven to the Brady home, and forced into an impromptu dance with the crippled monster! The sheriff is hurled onto a picket fence and we see how cats combat the sleepwalkers unlike humans. We see Mary and Charles' abilities to "dim" themselves and his car using a power of invisibility. Writer Stephen King even finds time to include himself and horror director buddies of his in a crime scene sequence with Clive Barker and Tobe Hooper as forensics officers, Joe Dante and John Landis as photograph experts.<br /><br />The film is shot in a tongue-in-cheek, let-it-all-hang-out manner with music appropriately hammering this technique home. It's about the ultra-violence, simple as that, with some deranged behavior and jet black humor complimenting Garris' direction and King's screenplay. The incestuous angle of the sleepwalkers is a bit jarring and in-your-face. Without a lick of complexity, this is closer in vein to King's own demented MAXIMIMUM OVERDRIVE than his more serious works.

John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect.

One of the most timely and engrossing documentaries, you'll ever watch. While the story takes place in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, it provides an intimate look into political dynamics, that prevail throughout the western Hemisphere. While essentially another chapter in the story of the "U.S. backed, Latin American coup", this film chronicles in real-time, what can happen when the poorest people, are armed with unity, political savvy, and courage! <br /><br />The political insights offered by this film are invaluable. One gets clear examples of the private media, as a formidable force for mass deception and propaganda. We see the poor people of Caracas grappling with the brutal realities of "American politics". One gets a clear sense of impending doom, if the people fail to address the blatant tyranny, which has been abruptly, and illegally, thrust upon them by the conspirators. We also see the arrogance and fascism, of the CIA backed, private media, plutocrats, and generals, who've conspired to bring Venezuela back under Washington's domination. Though ably led by President Hugo Chavez, the people of Caracas are forced to act without him, after Chavez was forcibly kidnapped by renegade generals. Their response is the highpoint of the film. If one seeks an excellent portrait of what the U.S. government, Hugo Chavez, and revolutionary Venezuela, are all about, this movie is it!

This is a very bad western mainly because it is historically inaccurate. It looks as if it were shot on a back lot in California instead of where Jack Slade lived and died, Idaho, Colorado Territories, and Montana. It fictionalizes everything that is known about this mysterious 'bad man,' 'good man.' The script is horrible; there is very little direction, and lousy acting. Dorothy Malone is completely wasted as his wife. Mark Steven never seems to know how to portray this mysterious Jack Slade. In real life, Jack Slade was a very good stage line superintendent. He was feared by his local townsmen for his hard drinking. When drunk he would start fights and cause other problems in Virginia City, Montana. To insure that he could never terrorize them again, vigilantes lynched Jack Slade after he ignored their warning to leave town immediately. This is a horrible movie. I can not recommend anyone to watch this movie other than to see how Hollywood butches history at will, even to this day.

WHEN I first saw this film, in London, in 1958, I was bowled over. I had never seen a film like this before. It had a strange, hypnotic effect, quite unlike the films that I had seen previously and it left a lasting impact.<br /><br />I believe that Odile Versios & Marina Vlady are sisters, if not twins. Certainly the interaction is amazing in its power to influence the viewer.<br /><br />If this has been converted to DVD - in Region 2 format - and in the original French language, I would love to hear about it & where it can be purchased.

In reviewing this film I can only go by my experiences as a weekend warrior doing my basic training in July, August, and September of 1971 in that garden spot of the earth, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Take the High Ground was not anything like I remember basic training.<br /><br />But one has to remember at the time this was post Korea which ended in a stalemate, but it was a conventional war as we knew them. It was not Vietnam, a jungle guerrilla war where we kept pouring draftees into an endless pit. The draft at that time was an unwelcome, but accepted as still necessary for the country's defense.<br /><br />Richard Widmark is a veteran of Korea now assigned state side to train the troops to go overseas. The film is about one of his training cycles and the men of the platoon he has to train. They're the usual kind you would find in just about any war film from the previous decade. <br /><br />One thing I will praise Take The High Ground for is the fact that MGM recognized our army was now an integrated one with the presence of William Hazard as a black recruit in the platoon. It was in keeping with the spirit of the times which were a changing.<br /><br />But I will say that a recruit like Russ Tamblyn would have been cured of his smart mouth from day one. Richard Widmark would have not risked death or becoming a eunuch in order to give Jerome Courtland confidence with a weapon. And no way would have he worried so much about Robert Arthur deserting. He's have just let the MPs deal with him.<br /><br />Of course being shot in and around Fort Bliss and El Paso, Texas did give Take the High Ground good authenticity. But view it as an army recruiting film and you can certainly understand why the government so eagerly gave cooperation back in the day.<br /><br />I do remember the drill sergeants having their little conflicts which you could pick up on when you weren't worried about them getting on your case for something which was 95% of the time. But there ain't no way that Karl Malden would have slugged Widmark out in the open during training in front of several witnesses among the recruits. Both would have realized that would have undermined authority, something the military just doesn't let happen.<br /><br />I wish I could have said something better about Take The High Ground because I certainly like its talented cast, it's talented director Richard Brooks, even the silly theme by Dimitri Tiomkin and Ned Washington, fresh from their Oscar a year before for High Noon. The film actually got an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and story by Millard Kaufman. It must have been for Kaufman's vivid imagination.

A kind of road movie in old-fashioned trains in the Slowenian late summer province. At the beginning you see someone in underwear sewing trousers from black cloth, and when the same young man in his black trousers leaves the house with two suitcases, you see that the trousers-part is missing on a flag of mourning (appearently his father has died). In the train he meets a young lady, and almost without words, but many small gestures, a wonderful love story begins. It's a somehow surreal, very poetic, and a little bizarre movie, with a lot of strange characters and strange incidents. Beautiful pictures with love for beautiful details.

Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as "Dangerous Female"), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version. Ricardo Cortez must have been getting paid by the smirk. I hope he remembered his dentist and his Brylcreem salesman in his will; they made him the actor he was. The women are all good, but no better than that. Well, Una Merkel is a little better. More interesting are the "original" Joel Cairo and Mr. Gutman, who competently deliver many of the individual tics but almost nothing of the set-changing atmospherics of their successors in the roles, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't. <br /><br />This movie doesn't exactly stink; it lies there like a big slice of ham. Its chief value today is as a reminder that great movies like the '41 "Falcon" don't just happen. On the 1-to-10 scale I rate it a 4, mainly for the camera work and the supporting players.

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.

This is a very old and cheaply made film--a typical low-budget B-Western in so many ways. Gary Cooper was not yet a star and this film is highly reminiscent of the early films of John Wayne that were done for "poverty row" studios. With both actors, their familiar style and persona were still not completely formed. This incarnation of Gary Cooper doesn't seem exactly like the Cooper of just a few years later (he talks faster in this early film, among other things).<br /><br />However, unlike the average B-movie of the era, there are at least a few interesting elements that make the film unique (if not good). If you ever want to see the woman that was married to Errol Flynn for seven years, this is your chance. Lili Damita stars as the female love interest and this is a very, very odd casting choice, as she has a heavy accent (she was French) and wasn't even close to being "movie star pretty". Incidentally, she was also married to director Michael Curtiz. <br /><br />But for me, the most memorable and weird aspect of the film is the seemingly gay subplot--sort of like a BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN from the 1930s (and we thought this was a NEW idea). Gary Cooper's character was raised by two men who hate women and do everything they can through much of the film to keep Cooper clear of females. This misogyny alone doesn't necessarily mean much, but there are so many clues throughout the film that indicate the makers of the film really were trying to portray them as a gay couple. In particular, towards the end, when one of them is killed, the other is shot by an arrow and holds off dying long enough to crawl over to the body of his fallen friend and then falls--with his arms cradled around him! This was pretty edgy stuff for the time and I think this makes this dull film really fascinating today! As far as Cooper and the plot go, the film is a bit of a disappointment and very skip-able. Unless you are curious about Damita or the homosexual undertones, do yourself a favor and find a better Western.

Intense actors like Bruce Dern, Jason Patrick and Rachel Ward combine to make this modern-day film noir a winner. Of the three, I don't know who was most interesting as all offer good performances and intriguing characters.<br /><br />Patric does the narration in this noir, playing an ex-boxer and mental patient. Wow, that alone makes for an interesting guy! He looks dumb, but he isn't. Ward is the slinky, attractive, cynical, intelligent and compassionate co- conspirator of a kidnapping plan that goes bad. Bruce Dern also is in the mix and Dern never fails to fascinate in about any film.<br /><br />The movie could be considered kind of downer to the average viewer, but I found it fascinating....and I don't like depressing movies normally. What I found was a kind of quirky crime film. Take a look and see if you agree. This is pretty unknown film that shouldn't have that status because it's simply a good story and well-done.

...and Ethel Merman buffs, too, will love her loud, bossy vocals as the wicked witch Mombi, but this cartoon sequel to "The Wizard Of Oz" is bereft of real imagination, substituting fantasy and excitement with noisy action (and cheaply repeating its footage like a bad music video). Little Dorothy is whisked back to Oz, which has gone to ruin, and meets old and new friends. The inelegant animation is stuck somewhere between the weakest Walt Disney and the less-inspired shows from Hanna-Barbera, however many of the songs are good, particularly Dorothy's sweet lament "It's a Far Away Land", superbly performed by Liza Minnelli. You can count on Minnelli for energy, which is why the movie perks up whenever Dorothy is around. Much of it is unmemorable, and I'm not even sure baby-boomers will get a charge from it since it has been out of circulation for so long. As a curiosity item, just fair. ** from ****

Along with "Aparadektoi, the best Greek Comedy series ever ! Lefteris Papapetrou writes and Antonis Aggelopoulos directs in a magnificent way Soso, Alekos, Flora, Achilleas, Grandpa Aristides, Machi, Johnnie, Corrina and Michalis ! In a few words, Alekos, a butcher living in a district around the center of Athens is married to Soso. One day he meets Flora, an old date of his, who now is married to Achilleas and lives along with her father-in-law and his caretaker, Machi. Machi also has a son named Johnny who appears at the end of the first period and the entire second one. the rest main characters are Michalis, Alekos's assistant at the butcher's and bi-sexual and Corrina, Achilleas's lost sister who has turned up to be the best prostitute in the entire Athens. The main story of the series is Soso's attempts to kill Alekos, because he is cheating on her, but everything else happening in that are not of lower importance. Brilliant screenplay, with an excellent plot, poisonous quotes, awesome performances and a great directing. Original idea and especially the shootings were something that was done at the Greek television, for a series of the Greek television, for the first time, e.g. scenes shot under water ! Surely a serial you will never stop enjoying !

I've almost forever been against the inclusion of songs in a movie. My belief was that the quality of the film would automatically be improved if only those extremely annoying songs would be axed. However, things have quickly changed after watching that horrible Black (no songs) & this movie, Page 3 (plenty of songs). While Black was weak to an extreme, Page 3 delivers a gripping story with some strong acting & good direction. The songs were almost incidental & blended in almost seamlessly with the film. There certainly weren't any women getting sprayed with water for no apparent reason from mysterious water sources while gyrating wildly on the streets at night.<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised with the bold and unabashed approach used by the director. There was no glossing over of anything and almost every scene was completely believable.<br /><br />I'd recommend this films for Hindi-speaking people with at least a slight understanding of Mumbai life. The former because the English subtitling was below par and contained many errors which, at times, completely reversed the meaning of the actual statement. The latter because you'll definitely appreciate the accuracy of the depiction once you've lived it yourself.<br /><br />I'd definitely rank this as a work worthy of international recognition. The scenes with the gossiping drivers was a nice touch and it served simultaneously as a source of genuine humour as well as another perspective on the whole mishmash. The movie does fall short in a few places though, where the characters sometimes say the most inexplicable things which detract from the overall direction of the film.<br /><br />I also thought that a couple of the sadder scenes were not done very well. It was a touch amusing to watch, rather than arouse any feelings of sadness & the whole scene tended to come across as a bit foolish. These are minor issues though, because the film, on the whole, is truly a rare treat to watch.<br /><br />Overall, it's a cynical, pessimistic outlook and a refreshing one at that! Actors, not 'heroes' - that's the key. A chance to glimpse believable human beings in an extraordinary setting - everyday life. A behind-the-scenes look at the extent of the depravity and a rare ray of hope for Indian cinema.<br /><br />8/10.

My friends and I were just discussing how frustrated we are with the way movies and especially romantic comedy's are being made. We feel offended by the schlock that Hollywood is serving up these days as they act like all is well.<br /><br />Well all is not well...with the exception of a few bright spots, like this movie. It doesn't have the big name actors, the big budget, I don't think it had a big release (I rented from Hollywood Video) it didn't really have anything that most big budget romantic comedy's have.<br /><br />But it did have what most of those lack. It had great chemistry between the love interests, "Parker" (Jonathan Schaech) and "Sam" (Alison Eastwood). Their love story wasn't forced on us like so many. The director took his time to allow these characters to truly get to know each other. Their story reminded me of one of my favorites, "Tootsie".<br /><br />The supporting cast added not only really funny comic moments, but depth to the story as well. James LeGros' character was absolutely priceless. Sam's gay friend was hysterical. Parker's interaction with his fellow employees in a Psychic Hotline was a lot of fun.<br /><br />I laughed, I cried, I remembered how great it feels to fall in love.

The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it.

A very refreshing story, the life of a parrot with an intellect higher than an average human's. Shows humans from a bird's point of view. Especially liked the portrayal of different types of characters that the bird spends time with. Not all birds are bird-brained...

Body Slam (1987) is a flat out terrible movie. The low budget reeks, the direction is pedestrian (at best) and the writing and acting is lame. But if you're into old school wrestling (circa 1970's through the mid-80') then you'll be more entertained than the average viewer. I have to warn you, this movie stinks on ice. I gave it a two because I felt like being generous. This turkey was "directed" by stunt master Hal Needham. The stars are Roddy Piper, The Tonga Kid and a bunch of scrub wrestlers and c-list actors (Dirk Benedict).<br /><br />The synopsis of this "movie" is about a promoter who wants to combine "hair rock" and wrestling. But their are others that don't want him to succeed. There's more but I don't want to SPOIL it for you. If you can stomach the bad acting and inane storyline, there's a few surprises near the end for die-hard wrestling fans. <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy (and I mean it).

Brilliant adaptation of the largely interior monologues of Leopold Bloom, Stephen Dedalus, and Molly Bloom by Joseph Strick in recreating the endearing portrait of Dublin on June 16, 1904 - Bloomsday - a day to be celebrated - double entendre intended! Bravo director Strick, screenwriter Haines, as well as casting director and cinematographer in creating this masterpiece. Gunter Grass' novel, The Tin Drum filmed by Volker Schlöndorff (1979)is another fine film adaptation of interior monologue which I favorably compare with Strick's film.<br /><br />While there are clearly recognized Dublin landmarks in the original novel and in the film, there are also recognizable characters, although with different names in the novel. For example, Buck Mulligan with whom Dedalus lives turns out to be a then prominent Dublin surgeon. <br /><br />This film for all of its excellence is made even richer by additional viewings. <br /><br />Brian [email protected] 15 June 2008

If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.<br /><br />Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. <br /><br />Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.

I loved this movie! Chris Showerman did an amazing job! Not only is he an incredible actor, but he is gorgeous with an awesome physique! He did a great job on the delivery of his lines, plus transformed into George better than Fraser did. A great performance for his first major roll! This movie is full of hilarious scenes that every child will love. My kids have watched this movie numerous times since we purchased the DVD the day it came out. In addition to the movie, the extras on the DVD are just as hilarious. Two thumbs up on this one! I highly recommend it to everyone!

This movie is NOT the same as the 1954 version with Judy Garland and James Mason, and that is a shame because the 1954 version is, in my opinion, much better. I am not denying Barbra Streisand's talent at all. She is a good actress and brilliant singer. I am not acquainted with Kris Kristofferson's other work and therefore I can't pass judgment on it. However, this movie leaves much to be desired. It is paced slowly, it has gratuitous nudity and foul language, and can be very difficult to sit through.<br /><br />However, I am not a big fan of rock music, so it's only natural that I would like the Judy Garland version better. See the 1976 film with Barbra and Kris, and judge for yourself.

My name is Domino Harvery. {EDIT *dizzying* CHOP} My--my--my name is Domino Harvey. {CUT, CHOP} My name is Domino Harvey. {EDIT. CUT. Playback}<br /><br />Never have I seen a director take so much flack for his style before. By now it is evident that most people do not appreciate Tony Scott's choppy, flashy, dizzying editing technique. If I have to choose between loving it and hating it, I'd say I love it. It was borderline distracting at times, but the end result was pretty good and it's nice to see a director with a creative edge to his style and some originality (even if it borrows heavily from MTV videos).<br /><br />This stylistic edge manifests itself as Keira Knightley plays the role of cocky badass bounty hunter Domino Harvey and even her dialogue seems strangely choppy. Otherwise she plays her poorly because I pretty much hated her character and did not sympathize one bit with her, no matter how much she suffered. We follow Domino through her life as she joins up with fellow bounty hunters Mickey Rourke, Rizwan Abbasi and Edgar Ramirez. The crew become tangled up in the FBI and suddenly has a reality show contract under Christopher Walken's TV production company (what is Christopher Walken doing in every film, by the way?). I guess that is a clever film technique, because now Tony Scott is free to use as much flashy MTV/Reality Show editing footage as he likes. It becomes a pastiche of MTV culture at this point.<br /><br />It followes then that the story is told at an amazingly rapid-fire pace, with lots of raunchy strong language and gun violence. There are some funny jokes; it's all very modern and surreal at the same time. It's a mess, but it's a rather enjoyable mess. It is ultimately flawed in so many ways (the actors try too hard to make their characters "cool", for one) but it works. I give it a weak 7/10 which may seem generous when compared to the general consensus of movie-goers who graded this film — but I feel it had some good ideas and executed them well.<br /><br />7 out of 10

Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation.

I just saw "Behind Bedroom Doors," and this was the first softcore flick with a solid story behind it that I've seen in a while.<br /><br />We begin with two neighborly couples--Vivian and James Fenway (Julia Kruis and Eric Carrington), and Lillian and Gabe Harris (Nicole Sheridan and Chris Gustafson). Vivian appears to be a housewife, James is a lawyer running for district attorney, Lillian works in real estate, and Gabe is a successful plastic surgeon. Got all that? Now, let's get into it.<br /><br />Enter Abby, played beautifully by porn star Chelsea Blue. She's renting the house across the street from the Fenways and lives all by herself. At the beginning of the movie, James looks out his window and sees Abby engaged in playtime with her girlfriend, Gigi (played by prolific pornstress Monique Alexander) and secretly begins to wonder what it would be like to be with her. The next day, Abby gets acquainted with all four of them, and appears to be a nice woman who just happens to be living an alternative lifestyle. She makes a pass at Vivian, who seems startled and says to her, "Oh...I'm...not that way." Everything seems okay...until the plan gets set in motion<br /><br />First, Abby shows up at Gabe's office, naked, asking Gabe if she should get a boob job. This is where we get our quote of the movie:<br /><br />"Tell me about Gabe." "What do you want to know?" "Is Gabe happily married?" "I'm married." "There's trouble.....let me guess. Your wife stays at home, and does everything you ask. But, she's a good girl." "Yes." "She's not a bad girl?" "No." "Does that door have a lock on it?"<br /><br />You know what happens next....Abby gets it on with Gabe, right there in the exam room. After that, she puts on a little show in her window for James, who comes over and wastes no time in having sex with her. What James doesn't know is that the teddy bear on the piano with the flashing red eye is really a camera taping all the festivities (it's so obvious anyway). Abby has sex with Gabe again later, and this time Gigi joins in to make it a three-way. Now that Abby has something on both men, she requests $100,000 from each in order to buy her silence. Not only could she ruin James's run for office, but she could destroy Gabe's practice.<br /><br />While Gabe and James wrestle with their guilt, Abby finds time to seduce Lillian--who "experimented" with women in college. That was a long time ago, but you wouldn't know that seeing her in action with Abby--she looked like an old pro.<br /><br />While Gigi goes along with the plan, she's seems jealous of all the sex her girlfriend is having. "It's only business," Abby says. Confessions and apologies are sure to follow, as is some startling info on Abby's true identity--it seems she's been doing the same thing to different men in many different places. Gabe and James use this info to fight back against Abby's blackmail.<br /><br />Now, on to the sex. The sex scenes were pretty good, and considering all the women involved in this film except for Julia Kruis have a lengthy porn background, I wouldn't have expected anything less. Nicole Sheridan's four scenes were the best of the movie, with the three-way coming in a close second. Monique Alexander only got naked once, but she was a relatively minor character. Julia Kruis was a major character and got naked the same number of times. I suppose since she was surrounded by experienced hardcore pros, she didn't have to have as many sex scenes.<br /><br />To wrap up, "Behind Bedroom Doors" had a great storyline, which enhanced the overall grade of the film. I consider it tapeworthy.<br /><br />Women: A- (Nicole Sheridan was good in this film--better than her later offerings in Fred Olen Ray's comedies. At least she can do drama somewhat. Chelsea Blue was a scene stealer--she wasn't that bad as the antagonist. I'd give her an A all by herself. Julia Kruis was her usual self. I wish Monique Alexander had more face time in this film, though.)<br /><br />Sex: B (Solid, very solid sex scenes. Nicole Sheridan's performances were almost hardcore quality. Chelsea Blue looked good in her scenes, too. The two girl-girl offerings weren't scorching, but they did warm up the screen.)<br /><br />Story: B+ (I liked the dialogue and the main storyline. Chelsea Blue's performance was good for the genre, and I was impressed with Nicole Sheridan's turn at drama.)<br /><br />Overall: B (This was a nice softcore flick. I'm glad I was able to watch this one, as I was pleasantly surprised. If Chelsea Blue ever wanted to do more of these, she'd be welcome anytime. That goes for Nicole Sheridan, too--even though she's probably better at doing comedy. I don't mind hardcore girls who can act doing softcore films.)

I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.<br /><br />There are probably less than 60 seconds of "blob footage" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?

It's very hard to say just what was going on with "The Lady from Shanghai" and what the film could have been without studio interference. Orson Welles' prime interest in film at this point was to raise money for his theater; indeed, funding his own projects is what drove him to seek out acting jobs. He made "Lady from Shanghai" for his soon to be ex-wife, Rita Hayworth. Harry Cohn was fearful for Rita's image and held back the release of this movie for one year.<br /><br />The plot concerns an Irish sailor, Michael O'Hara, who falls in love with Else (Hayworth, stunning with short blond hair). Her husband is a well known criminal attorney Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) who is as crippled on the inside as he is out. He hires O'Hara to work on his yacht, and there O'Hara is drawn deeper and deeper into a web of murder and deceit.<br /><br />"The Lady from Shanghai" moves at a snail's pace, though I agree with one of the posters that films today are criticized for taking time to build a plot. Still, this movie drags. The scene in the fun house is fantastic - Welles wanted it without music, though, and I believe the studio cut it down. It's a shame. The photography throughout is stunning, atmospheric, bold, and very stylish.<br /><br />Welles was an excellent actor, handsome in his youth, charismatic and possessing a magnificent voice and technique, but in many films, it's almost as if he doesn't trust himself or doesn't take the time to develop a character. Instead he relies on externals such as accents and fake noses. One of the only times he didn't do this was "Tomorrow is Forever," where the director gets an excellent, deeply felt performance out of him. Contrast that with "Compulsion" where he shows he is a master of pure technical acting as he phones in his performance. Here Welles is doing quadruple duty - as director, star, co-writer and narrator. Sporting a completely unnecessary accent and looking intense was a fast way to a characterization. Nevertheless, he is always compelling.<br /><br />The supporting players are excellent, including Sloan and Glenn Anders. Hayworth, gorgeous and soft-voiced (her singing was again dubbed by Anita Ellis) is as usual a complete goddess and one of the great screen presences. What a sad life for such a vibrant beauty.<br /><br />Any film that Orson Welles directed is worth seeing, and "The Lady from Shanghai" is no exception. But this one leaves the viewer frustrated, as does "The Magnificent Ambersons" - as does any work that Welles did within the studio system. He was a great artist who should have been given a freer reign; he wasn't. He was a strange dichotomy - he needed more freedom, but as is evidenced by some of his later work, he needed the structure of the studio. Alas, he couldn't have both.

this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya

This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW!

I'll probably get a lot of flack for hating this movie- guess I didn't approach it with the proper dewy-eyed nostalgia of the generation before me. But suffice it to say- St Elmo's Fire was pretty crap-freaking- tastic, even as far as Brat Pack films go.<br /><br />Here is yet another lovely example of the smug, self-indulgent neurosis that is everything 80s (RENT, anyone?) The plot is virtually non- existent and the philosophies are kitchy at best, poorly delivered the rest of the time. The complete lack of anything resembling sympathetic characters doesn't help the situation. There really was no growth, no forward movement at all. Even the climactic suicide scene was effectually neutered by once again refusing to let death or anything resembling reality or adult life enter in. <br /><br />Each cookie cutter figure simply goes about making you hate them in the blandest, most predictable way possible. The Stalker is a creep for no discernible reason other than he is a Stalker and Andie MacDowell is gorgeous. The Jackass does everything in his power to constantly remind you he is, well, a jackass. The Gorgeous Slut hides really soulful, deep pain with a wild lifestyle. The Poet moods and mopes around for a full 3/4 of the film until he can reveal (!) he actually is full of teddy bears and sunshine and rainbows. The Virgin finally becomes a whole, happy human being after getting every Virgin's desire of one hot roll in the sack with a Jackass before he ditches her to really change (for real this time). The Cheating Bastard cheats until it is time for him to get caught. And finally The Feminist go around dousing holy water on any soul that utters "commitment".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final beef- what bond of super-cement was holding these people together as friends? I can't imagine being with just one of them- Now think of the vortex created by all that narcissism centered in one bar. And they were all so terrible to each other- heads in toilets, near rape, and sleeping around with everrrryone. The cherry was after two BFFs act like total baboons after screwing the Feminist, she's like, "umm, actually I don't want to be with either of you anymore. Let's be friends! And we can hang out in a totally unawkward way every day knowing that I may hook up with one or the other at any given point, but neither of you are satisfying enough for commitment (NOT THAT WORD!)." And they all smile as if to say, "Golly gee, I never thought of that! What a great idea!"<br /><br />Only it's not. Kinda in the way that watching this movie is not.

I personally liked this movie and am alarmed at the rating's some people have given it. It is a movie based on a comic book and it is animated, now if you don't like comic books or animation then of course you won't like this movie so why did you watch and bother to rate it is beyond me. Though, if you are a fan of Interesting, strong characters and heroic(sexy) women kicking butt and saving the world(hell) you will love this movie. I thought the story really pulled me in and it was a very cool movie. Quite anime-esque or more like some of the American movies following this new trend of adult animation. Like Titan A.E. meet's the live action version of Punisher. In the end I highly recommend this movie the comic buff and super hero fan or anyone with an open enough mind looking for a fun movie.

The cover of box of this movie has Kyle Minogue's name on it, but she has the same destiny as Drew Barrymore did in "Scream." That's the first thing that makes this movie lame; they are trying to market a movie with someone that's in it for 5 minutes.<br /><br />Of course, we have to have this movie feature young hip college kids that are oblivious that there's a killer going around. To top it all off, Molly Ringwald of 80's teen movie fame is the star of this beautifully written film. It's a good career move for Molly to get some money doing a crappy movie in Australia so she won't get ridiculed in the states.<br /><br />Either way, this dumb movie is about some dumb horror movie that was never finished because this dumb creature kills everyone that's in it. Throughout the movie, we're supposed to guess who's the killer. Long story short, remember our little friend Molly, she saves the day...or does she?<br /><br />This move is just plain bad, rent it if you feel like torturing yourself or just break it on the floor of your local video store if you see it on the shelf. Don't spread the horror.

To begin with, I loved göta kanal 1, it had a lot of classic jokes including that unlucky guy in the canoe who always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, he is still acting the same guy in the göta kanal 2 movie but in my opinion hes performance is not as funny as it was in the first movie, in fact you don't notice him much at all. A thing that made me think bad about this movie is the choice of boats, in this movie there are only race boats, they sure is speedy but those do not make waves like the big floating mansions used in the first movie, I liked the old ones better and these new boats makes one of the last scenes look ridiculous when the man in the canoe suddenly jumps out of it to evade the "big waves" from those small speedy boats. Truly a minus. You have to accept that we're not living in the same Sweden as in 1974 anymore. This movie also contains a bit more violence than the first one. Although the movie was great all in all. I've just concentrated on some cons that i was disappointed in but the rest of the movie were up to my expectations, so go see it! It's worth the money.

When I read the summary of the movie, something like what happens when a man gets powers of a God, and how he later learns that having supernatural powers requires giant responsibility and strength, I though that was clever and original concept. Casting was promising too, Carrey, Freeman, Aniston... How can movie with a good idea and good actors, not to mention costs of filming, can be bad? It can. Idea is good, but script and story itself is terrible. Bruce Nolan is, let's be honest, a pretty mediocre journalist, with not exactly great stories (like a story of a giant cookie, what a faux pas, and the Niagara report is complete fiasco!), he's a man with a job he completely DESERVES (he's not a good journalist, he's a comedian), considering his potentials, with a nice home, sugar sweet girlfriend, and OH HORROR!!!! Dog who is not house trained!!! Yes, as soon as Bruce, at the beginning of the movie starts addressing GOd in a "God, why do you hate me!" manner, average viewer must think: "Why, what's wrong with your life, Bruce?". Bruce is not, and definitely NOT the man with real problems in life. Most the troubles that happen to him are minor and not really worth of all that fuss he makes, and some of them are really only the result of his stupidity. Most people have really big problems, worth of attention, most people are more worth of attention that Bruce, who doesn't seem too human after all, doesn't look even realistic, too goofy and neurotic, but God still addresses to him. Why? Though Morgan Freeman looks nice as a God, I can't help but to ask what is he doing in this particularly bad movie. And what does Bruce do when God gives him his powers? God in this movie could as easily give his powers to a 5 year old kid and there hardly would be any difference. No, wait, a smart kid would probably use his God powers better than Bruce. What does Bruce do? Pulls the moon closer to earth to create romantic atmosphere, parts the red soup, lifts up a pretty woman's dress on the street, answers prayers via e-mail and make all of them come true!!!! No more, Bruce, please! What Bruce did could actually end the world, but in the movie, that doesn't happen, because this is "nice, family, little movie" and doesn't make any sense at all!!! Not a hint of sarcasm, of real humor, of wittiness, of some dirty humor at least!!! Nothing. Just Carrey playing silly, which is starting to look pathetic on middle aged actor. Aniston here is understated. She plays pale, undeveloped character of Bruce's girlfriend Grace, and stays completely forgettable in this movie. Nobody in the right mind would believe that this two have any chemistry at all between them. When Grace says prayer for Bruce it sounds not only lame and pathetic, but completely false. These two are not meant to be together. I would give three stars, but I doubt movie deserves a one. Bad script, lame dialogs, lack of real humor, wittiness and any sophistication, as well as undeveloped characters and understated Freeman's and Aniston's roles, total lack of boldness and sarcasm, it all makes movie hardly worth ***. But OK, there were few funny moments, and Freeman is always nice to see in any movie so, lets leave three stars.

I'd love to give Kolchak a higher rating but the show quickly went from scary/suspenseful to silly. ABC's fault. They moved the show to Friday nights at 8:00 p.m., then known as the "family hour". Never should have been on Fridays in the first place. I was a sophomore in high school and loved the early episodes! It was first up against Police Woman on NBC. ABC had huge problems with Friday nights. Bad season for them overall until Barney Miller, Baretta, and SWAT debuted in January of '75. Kolchak should have been a hit. Darren McGavin begged to get out of his contract to end the show. Too bad the writing wasn't up to Richard Matheson's in the original TV movies. Still, McGavin made Kolchak his own, as actors can do. Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden and Caroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker come to mind. That INS set with the manual typewriters and clacking teletypes seems quaint and ancient today, yet that was part of the appeal. They were very lucky to have Simon Oakland reprise "Vincenzo" from the TV films.

Holy crap! What a terrible, terrible Spanish thriller! I've had it for about four years and finally started it the other night. I watched an hour or so before heading to bed. I was pretty intrigued by the whole thing. I finished it last night and couldn't believe where I stopped it the night before. Literally, I stopped it the second before the movie went completely downhill.<br /><br />Like I said, I was pretty intrigued and curious as to where this mystery was going but stopped it right when Simon receives the package in the bar. I picked up when he opens up the package to reveal a laser gun and then plays a "menacing" game of laser tag. Whew! Then the big reveal is that the whole thing is a terrorist plot by role playing game nerds. WHEW! You can tell the Spanish industry was definitely behind director Mateo Gil (co-writer of Amenabar's two big previous hits). There is an excellent score and great photography. But this scenario reeks of silliness. How anyone sat through the last 40 minutes with a straight face is beyond me.

I've just watch 2 films of Pang brothers, The Eye and One take only. When I watched The Eye, I was kind of disappointed about this two guys, who I had heard good words about them before. That film (The Eye) has a really bad script, especially the ending (childish,cliche and too coincident in my opinion) , but its still good in photography and experimental images. So I decided to see One take only and I didn't disappointed again. Still great photography, stunning image, MTV-style editing, cool music and this time,the story has a lot of indie spirit,logical and beautiful, you'll see some tiny plot holes, but it doesn't cause any trouble with the storyline. The only problem about this film is I get a bad DVD.

I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."<br /><br />Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.<br /><br />From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.<br /><br />I give it a 2/10.

I remember watching this in the 1970s - then I have just recently borrowed a couple of episodes from our public library.<br /><br />With a nearly 30 year hiatus, I have come to another conclusion. Most of the principals interviewed in this series - some at the center of power like Traudl Junge (Hitler's Secretary),Karl Doenitz (head of Germany's navy) Anthony Eden (UK) - are long gone but their first hand accounts will live on.From Generals and Admirals to Sergeants, Russian civilians, concentration camp survivors, all are on record here. <br /><br />I can remember the Lord Mountbatten interview (killed in the 1970s) <br /><br />This is truly a gem and I believe the producer of this series was knighted by Queen Elizabeth for this work - well deserved.<br /><br />Seeing these few episodes from the library makes me want to buy the set.<br /><br />This is the only "10" I have given any review but I have discovered like a fine bottle of wine, it is more appreciated with a little time...

If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of "Kids" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.

Just watched this movie on DVD and thought the acting was very good, but the over all story left a lot to be desired. This movie has the same texture and look of Panic in Needle Park or Drugstore Cowboy. Hard to believe that human beings can live this type of lifestyle; on the underbelly of society, in which their total existence is based on hardcore drug use, crime, violence, sex, and a total lack of self-respect for anyone or anything, including themselves.<br /><br />Val Kilmore is outstanding in his role of "burnt-out" former porn star John Holmes. The supporting cast is just as good. However, this is a bleak, dark, disturbing, and depressing film. The murder was brutal, but the daily lives of these people were brutal as well. Unless you have an interest in these murders or were a "fan" of John Holmes, this really isn't a film to see. If you want to see a docu-drama on murder, Truman Capote's 1960s In Cold Blood starring Scott Wilson and Robert Blake is much better.

I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was "he deserves it, for making such a bad movie". Don't waste your time or money on this one.

I can remember watching this for the first time, when I was 9 years old. I wanted to be one of the "barbarian brothers". This movie is still great. One original aspect was that the fight scenes where very short. Implying that the "barbarian brothers" where so good that they finished there enemies off quickly! Plus, you have chases, a cage fight, a dragon, and yes even a bar brawl! <br /><br />Yes, the acting is bad so that's why it's not a ten, also the story line has received a lot of criticism. I think it is quite original. Not to many movies in it's genre have the same original story lines, or colorful dialogue. <br /><br />I definitely recommend this film.

First and foremost, Zorie Barber (Zeke), might be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. As a character that's supposed to be a hip, Village writer into the martial arts and proud of being mysterious, why is he so hyper, over-dramatic, and plain horrible? Did he know anything about his character before they started filming? Did the director? Don't the martial arts teach discipline? Aside from that, this film misses the target with its lame jokes and seen-it-already gross-out humor. Hand in toilet? <i>Trainspotting</i>. Masturbation? Hmm. <i>Fast Times at Ridgemont High</i>, <i>American Pie</i>, the list goes on.. .Bad dialogue: In one sequence, Eric says "it's none of my business <i>but</i> . ..." and 30 seconds later Mia says "why is this any of your business?" Bad editing: At least five minutes worth of film are wasted on NYC traffic shots. <hr>It's also impossible to believe that the four main male characters would be a tight-knit group of friends in any world. I can't comment on what makes everyone laugh, but if you enjoy low-brow, basic bathroom humor and insults, by all means, enjoy. If you want something a little smarter but on the same lines, see <i>Boomerang</i>. If you want a solid what-goes-around romantic comedy, go for <i>The Tao Of Steve</i>. But anyone who thinks <i>Whipped</i> is witty and an accurate portrayal dating, well, I cannot agree at all.

I stumbled across rerun syndication of this show several years ago, and fell in love with it. It features Téa Leoni and Holland Taylor and kept me laughing, one episode after the next. I guess it didn't make it so big, and was cancelled after a few seasons, but I believe it was a good run, and would suggest watching it...if the opportunity arises.

I was interested in the title and description of Big Rig while attending the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, TX. However, I was eager to get the heck out of the seats as soon as Big Rig ended. Big Rig is comprised of several "big rig" drivers who set out to deliver goods driven across the United States. The characters are all wonderful people, however the filmmakers never dug deep into the complexity of them as people. Instead, the story meanders as much as the maps in the film are meant to guide, but never do. At most, we get lost. We - the audience - end up going nowhere and, like the direction of the storytelling, end up somewhere but without direction, location, or plot. Why are we here? Where are we? How did we get here? The storytelling is sloppy and the directors' intent on "humanizing" a group of people who they regard as "overlooked" and "invisible" comes across as unconsciously and irritatingly condescending. The problem here here lies in the perspective of the directors instead of the truck drivers. The directors bring their own naive assumptions about truckers forward and then simply edit the film to confirm those assumptions. Overall, the story lacks any tension, the film is entirely too long (should have been a 15 min sketch), the big question of "So what" is never answered, and the entire film is one piece of see-through propaganda that does nothing to further "enlighten" (as the directors claim) the outside world about big riggers.

Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Sid Caesar, and Yvonne De Carlo star in this funny, funny movie. The late Fred Gwynne is truly wonderful as Herman Munster who lives with Grandpa Munster (Al Lewis), wife Lily (Yvonne De Carlo), and his son and daughter. Sid Caesar is hilarious as the owner of a wax museum that has a whole section dedicated to the Munster family. When the wax figures of Herman and Grandpa begin to terrorize the town everyone blames the two. The two now have to clear their names before it's too late. You'll laugh out loud just like I did.

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

While Rome goes mad celebrating Hitler's visit - uniforms, bands, parades - two outsiders stay home, in a large building, and wind up meeting. She is Sofia Loren, who is the wife of brutish public servant and mother of six children. He is Mastroianni, a radio speaker who's been fired because of his homosexuality. Both of them need company and understanding, both f them find it in each other.<br /><br />The movie covers a span of a few hours. The color are faded and everything takes place with a sound track of military marches and hysterical radio announcers. Strangely enough, the Nazi anthem - the Horst-Wessel-Lied - ends up becoming a romantic musical theme.<br /><br />Beautiful movie, excellent recreation of a special era in Italian history and a touching, sad story. Mastroianni is as good as we have come to expect and Sofia Loren does a superb job, very far away from her usual truck driver's pin-up, Neapolitan fishwife personas. Don't miss it.

"The Dream Child" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) "Nightmare" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, "The Dream Warriors" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, "Freddy's Dead", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, "The Dream Child" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint.

Goebbels motivation in backing down was not explored. In the aftermath of Stalingrad the Reich had decided to go for 'total war'. This is referred to in the film. Part of this was to use women in the war effort, which Germany had not previously done to any great extent. An SS massacre of women would have faced Goebbels with a public relations disaster of massive proportion. His preference was to make the problem go away as quietly as possible, on the basis that the Jewish men could always be rounded up later. I understand the majority survived the war.<br /><br />His other problem was that the 'Red' Berlin had never been very enthusiastically behind the Nazi cause and had to be handled cautiously. Again a massacre of women could have cost the Nazis what mediocre level of support they had in their capital city.<br /><br />It was interesting that the majority of SS uniforms showed patches which indicated that the men wearing them were not of German nationality, but were from German origins in other countries such as Lithuania or Latvia

Not very interesting teen whodunit saved from being a turkey from some decent performances. The main cast consisting of Taye Diggs, Mia Kirshner, Dominique Swain and surprisingly Meredith Monroe are all good but the story is not very original.

Personally I couldn't get into 'This is Not a Love Song', its a brilliant film and there's a great story line to it, I just found myself checking the time on my phone every two minuets to see how much was left of the film.<br /><br />I love the relationship between Spike and Heaton, there that close they depend on each other to get along in life. At the same time I wish the relationship was more than what it is. Heaton is in love with spike, but Spike Ibsen't in love with Heaton, or he doesn't know how to love him. The acts of betrayal, on both parts, have a big effect on the two men. They are both devastated by the fact that the other ran away and abandoned them, at a time when they truly needed each other for survival.

And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.<br /><br />There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.<br /><br />What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.<br /><br />The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.<br /><br />In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?

i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the"R" rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the "R" rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the "R" rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 10/10

I was looking forward to Kathryn Bigelow's movie with great anticipation after the endless hype and 6 Oscars which it was awarded. Unfortunately it really isn't a good movie. The depiction of the situation certainly seemed to be accurate and believable on all counts, but beyond that the story simply came across as incomplete and the direction of the movie appeared to be uncertain and haphazard. The actors put in a good effort, but for me I didn't really get what the movie was trying to be. It's not as atmospheric and gripping as Full Metal Jacket, not as epic as Band of Brothers, not as action packed as...well, anything. I certainly can't see why it was nominated for so much, nor why people are 'hyping it up' to these epic proportions. Mind you, given the calibre of movies in the last couple of years I suppose there's not a lot to choose from.

The absolute summum of the oeuvre of that crafty Dane Douglas Sirk (born Detlef Sierck), Written on the Wind compels our prurient attention in every gaudy frame. From its justly famous opening sequence, with the leaves blowing into the baronial foyer of a Texas mansion and the wind riffling the pages of the calendar into a flashback, the movie compresses into its 99 minutes all the familial intrigue that was to fuel such later, little-screen knockoffs as Dallas, Dynasty and Falcon Crest over their years-long runs.<br /><br />The combination of wealth and dysfunction is a theme Americans, in our dollar-based society, find irresistible. Brother and sister Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are the spoiled, troubled heirs to the Hadly oil fortune; boyhood chum Rock Hudson and new bride Lauren Bacall are the sane outsiders who try to keep the lid on the roiling cauldron. (It's been rumored that the story was based on Libby Holmann's marriage into Reynolds tobacco money.) As always, the misfits get all the scenery to chew -- and the best lines to spit out (Malone, in her Oscar-nabbing performance as the boozing nymphomaniac with a jones for Hudson, gets to detonate a whole fireworks display of them). Hudson, while good, can't compete with all this over-the-top emoting; Bacall starts out strong but grows recessive, a mere plot convenience. No matter; with a succession of set-pieces shot in extravagant hues, Sirk gives an object lesson in how to turn out overwrought melodrama set in the lush consumer paradise of late-50s America. Nobody ever did it better.

Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.

This is the best mob film ever made. It deserved more then what it got at the Oscars. Nominated for things like its score, art direction, supporting role (Newman), this film could have easily been nominated for Best Picture, Director (Mendes), Actor (Hanks), Supporting Actor (Newman and Law) and won!! Hanks gives one of his best performances, and the kid who played Michel Jr. was so good that I'm surprised i don't see him in more movies today. Critics themselves didn't give this film enough credit. But besides the incredible performances, another real star of this film is the incredible music. This was by far the best score of the year. It was nominated but didn't win. This is a great film that should be seen by everyone. My Grade-A+

(David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!! <br /><br />I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !<br /><br />I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.<br /><br />Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.<br /><br />Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.<br /><br />What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !<br /><br />At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word. <br /><br />P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the "Additional Details" his usual "Plot Keywords" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women !

Along with "Brothers & Sisters", "Six Degrees" was one of my favorite new dramas of fall 2006. <br /><br />Great cast all around, but really enjoyed the work of Campbell Scott (the come-back photog) and Hope Davis (recent widow of journalist killed in Iraq).<br /><br />Aside from the acting, the writing was fresh and the acting superb. The show was also shot in NYC, the real city, not the Warner Bros. or some other studio's backlot, adding a secondary layer or realism. <br /><br />I guess people are more interested in the latest "Survivor" and other reality garbage. Too bad it didn't last.

While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them: <br /><br />1. The Acting – When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.<br /><br />2. The Ghosts – The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.<br /><br />3. The Plot – How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.<br /><br />4. The Convenient Priest – What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.<br /><br />5. Everything Else – It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner – noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.<br /><br />I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.

I have never commented on a film before. I watched this movie with my girlfriend last night. I've read comments saying this movie stays with you. It does. It's been almost 24 hours and I am still completely affected. This movie left me questioning my own self. How can I possibly compare myself to a character such as Ben who is totally selfless. I loved this movie. I love movies that keep me guessing and wondering until the end. I feel two emotions predominantly, happiness and sadness. An amazing feel good movie and a very sad one too. I so wanted Ben and Emily to be together, but in the end, they were, forever. If you haven't seen this movie, get it and watch it. Just make sure you have no distractions. You'll want to see every nuance in this picture. One for my library.

I just finished watching guinea pig - Devils experiment. I have to say that this movie, although having very good FX, better then I expected, was NOT a good movie. I honestly cant say that I enjoyed this movie at all. Of course It is effective in its way of being a shocking, realistic, twisted 43 minutes of torture, but I found it to be very boring (and not as gory as i hoped). And also I found that the torturers were very annoying, when they talked and loughed trying to sound tough all the time, that ruined it even more (and Im sure there's some people out there who will agree with me on that one). I have now seen guinea pig 1,2,3,5 and the best one out of those in my opinion is guinea pig 2 - Flowers of the flesh and blood. I wont say much more about Devils experiment, other than Great fx, descent acting from the girl, annoying fu**ing torturers, overall I give it 4 stars on account of the FX cos they are awesome.

Bell Book and Candle was released in December 1958 and features James Stewart, Kim Novak, Jack Lemmon. and Ernie Kovaks. This film had James Stewart and Kim Novak in their second on-screen pairing (after the Alfred Hitchcock classic Vertigo, released earlier the same year). This was Stewart's last film as a romantic lead as he was deemed too old at age 50 to play that sort of part anymore. The movie is about a witch played by Kim Novak who is attracted to a mortal played by James Stewart. She puts a spell on him and he falls head over heels in love with her. I enjoyed the movie and its cast. This movie at the time was a moderate success which was nominated for a Golden Globe for best Movie Comedy. GimmeClassics

This is another example of a sucky sequel to a great movie. I highly recommend The Prophecy, but this movie was a dud from the start. The acting was decent all the way around, but the story line was weak and added nothing to the origional. A 4 out of 10 at best.

I have to vote this 10 out of 10 in the rare chance that she happens to see this review, takes pity on me, whisks me to Hollywood and involves me in her freaky/funny world. But in all seriousness, it was good. First episode is obviously finding it's feet, but it's got that Silverman weirdness running all the way through it. It's not a laugh out loud sort of comedy, but that's good thing, too much has a laughter-track to it, and this wouldn't be right with cues when to laugh, it's to the audience to hear their inner jester laughing at the absurdness of it all. I can easily see this as being the bizarro Drew Carey show with it's weird characters and incredibly strong central character. Well worth a watch, look forward to the following episodes. A VERY good chance from the usual comedy out there. <br /><br />ps, Sarah? Call me....

Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.<br /><br />Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.

this is the first of a two part back-story to the conflict between the machines and mankind in the Matrix world and it delivers spectacularly by combining observations on man's fear of the unknown and of being usurped with politics, extensive religious and historical imagery, subverting expected portrayals of parties involved and an at least partially believable and thus terrifying vision of our near future. it isn't perfect and some plot points and images are at once obvious and contrived but it has the desired effect and impact and tells a visceral and cautionary tale.<br /><br />this first part sets the scene - human societies have developed advanced and capable robots, mostly humanoid, to serve people doing menial, unskilled jobs, labour, construction etc. and thus the populace has become lazy and derogatory towards them. one robot, however, rebels and kills his owner, stating at his subsequent trial that he simply did not want to die. he is destroyed but when the robot masses' destruction is ordered to protect humanity many robots rise up in protest, with many human sympathisers alongside them.<br /><br />the imagery here is exploitative, recounting race riots and abuse, Tiananmen square, the holocaust and an overly provocative scene of a robot in a human girl's guise getting harried, hammered in the head and then shot dead as it pleads 'i'm real'. it lays on the ground, clothes and skin torn and breasts hanging out. it's an obvious and obscene image designed to present human fear towards uncontrolled elements and aggression towards groups based on the actions of individuals.<br /><br />anyway, this first portion is much like a compressed version of the film I Robot, but it soon develops into a recognisable Matrix back-story as the surviving robot contingent is exiled and congregates in the middle east, in the cradle of civilisation as the narrator informs us. there, the machines regroup and begin to produce new AI and to manufacture mass technology and trade it with human nations. we see a commercial for a car that uses the circular energy hover engines that the ships the rebels in the movies use and we see sentinel type robots flying around Zero One, the name of their city. their goods and trade make their economy soar affecting other economies detrimentally and human governments and authorities establish a blockade in response. the machines send ambassadors in the form of Adam and Eve resemblances to a UN congress to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the blockade, but they are forcibly removed and the scene is set for war in the second part.<br /><br />the animation is by Studio 4°C who work on quite a few of the Animatrix and it's evocative and visually stimulating, rendering different scenes like imagery montages, CCTV footage and particular scenes of import distinctive and overall presenting the story perfectly. the plot may not be an original concept and it may draw on simplistic sheep mentalities and plot models and resort to provocative material for impact but after the tantalising mystery offered by the first film and Morpheus' vague brief info-dumps this is a nice exposition of the cataclysmic events that left the world ravaged and in the hands of the machines that serves as a warning and as a vehicle for many observations and comments on the human condition, the development of AI and the importance of harmony and co-operation and the devastating consequences of conflict and prejudice, themes expanded on in the movies.

I've read some of the comments about this film and can only surmise that some people are easily entertained. This movie is nothing. It's so badly written, directed and acted that it barely makes an impression. The characters speak in cliche-ridden dialogue and the situations are completely implausible. While that might make this campy and fun, it doesn't because everything is so lifeless the film becomes dull. It's as if Lee Rose decided to write a drama about a woman struggling with her sexuality but then she either wasn't allowed by studio execs to give the story some true-to-life gusto or didn't have the cojones. This movie could go in the enyclopedia as the standard-issue bad Lifetime TV movie.

What's inexplicable? Firstly, the hatred towards this movie. It may not be the greatest movie of all time, but gimme a break, it got 11 oscars for a reason, it made EIGHTEEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS for a reason. It's a damn good movie. Which brings to the other inexplicable aspect of it. I have no idea whatsoever why this movie left such an impression on me when I saw it in theaters. I've rewatched it on TV and video, and it had none of the impact it had when I saw it on the big screen (twice, or maybe three times, actually). But that might be it, the appeal of it. It's a Movie, yes, capital M there, it's an Epic, it's a spectacle in the order of Gone With the Wind or Ben Hur. Now, Ben Hur and Gone With the Wind seem kinda hokey to me, with the hammy acting and excessive melodrama. Not that Titanic has none of that. Well, the acting was actually very good. The melodrama was quite heavy-handed at times.<br /><br />But the reason Titanic works is that it's such an emotional ride. I usually enjoy movies that stimulate the mind, or give me a visual thrill. This movie isn't exactly dumb, but it's not cerebral at all. The visual thrills are simply means to an end, to fuel the emotions of the audience. I didn't cry when Bambi's mom died, I don't react to tearjerkers. But this is a tearjerker to the power of ten million, an emotional rollercoaster that, if it were a regular one, would make Buzz Aldrin scream like a little girl. And I'm sure that if you see it on video and have decided that you hate it, and have a ready supply of cynicism, then you can thoroughly dislike this movie. But if you let that disbelief suspend just a bit, if you give this epic melodrama the benefit of the doubt, you'll enjoy it completely. And look at the top ten grossing films of all time. Is a single one of them bad? Is a single one of them worth a score of 1 out of 10? No, not even The Phantom Menace. And this movie made 1.8 BILLION DOLLARS worldwide. It can't be bad. Not possible. 10/10.<br /><br />p.s. how can anyone even consider comparing this to spiderman? spiderman was a fun movie, but it was a total 9/11 kneejerk that caused it to gross as much as it did. it simply wasn't anything all that special. no one will remember it in 50 years. but i'm pretty sure Titanic will be remembered.

A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.<br /><br />Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.<br /><br />End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.

I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.

In fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the "golden age of Hollywood", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.

Eddie Murphy really made me laugh my ass off on this HBO stand up comedy show.I love his impressions of Mr. T,Ed Norton and Ralph Cramden of "The Honeymooners",Elvis Presley,and Michael Jackson too.The Ice Cream Man,Goony Goo Goo,is also funny.I saw this for the first time when it came out in 1984.I laughed so hard,I almost fell off my chair.I still think this is very funny.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy,when he was on "Saturday Night Live",made me laugh so hard,he is one of the best people to come out of"Saturday Night Live"."Eddie Murphy Delirious"is his best stand up performance next to "Eddie Murphy Raw".<br /><br />I give "Eddie Murphy Delirious" 2 thumbs up and 10/10 stars.

I saw this film first in the Soviet Union and many erotic scenes were simply edited out by the censorship committee. But then, in Poland in 2000, I watched it in a complete form. And so what? The plot is incredibly unwise - 2 men survive the genetic catastrophe and find themselves on the planet full of feminist strong, straight and fundamentally severe ladies. The men now try to fight it and then the whole bunch of extremely silly clichés follow - sex-drive, constant masculine desire for sex, feminists who are shown like complete idiots (you may agree with them or not, but idiots certainly they are not), and so on. The performance even of the stellar Jerzy Stuhr is here wooden and strangely bad - he just pulls unfunny faces and repeats on saying phrases like "I am in the elevator with a nude chick and I haven't done anything to her!". This was intended to be a comedy, instead, it turned out to be a vapid farce, full of predictable jokes and below-the-waist innuendos. Do not waste your time on it - this is just bad.

I don't think most people give this movie as much credit as it deserves. I love low budget horror movies and this takes the cake, especially for originality. Yes the Scarecrow is a Kung-Fu fighting frightner, but why not? No one else is willing to go that far. I really haven't had this much fun watching a movie since Candyman. So the town picks on this one kid calling him scarecrow, even his mom doesn't care about him. Then he gets killed and the spirit is infused with in the Scarecrow, who then goes on a Killing spree. His demise is relatively easy to assume once the movie gets going. The dedications at the end go straight to a bunch of horror directors, but with most dedication towards Dario Argento really struck me as cool, these folks who wanna make movies of a newer genre. Over the movie has a lot of Arnold rip offs, with one liners you'll definitely laugh at like stick around and he kills the sheriff with a stick. I would say, grab a pizza some friends an laugh your A$$ off with this movie. I love it for its originality, most fun.

It really impresses me that it got made. The director/writer/actor must be really charismatic in reality. I can think of no other way itd pass script stage. What I want you to consider is this...while watching the films I was feeling sorry for the actors. It felt like being in a stand up comedy club where the guy is dying on his feet and your sitting there, not enjoying it, just feeling really bad for him coz hes of trying. Id really like to know what the budget is, guess it must have been low as the film quality is really poor. I want to write 'the jokes didn't appeal to me'. but the reality is for them to appeal to you, you'd have to be the man who wrote them. or a retard. So imagine that in script form...and this guy got THAT green lit. Thats impressive isn't it?

Sure, he became rapidly uneven after this film, but from "Knife In the Water" up till "The Tenant", Roman Polanski could always be counted on to deliver something fascinating and unique. Despite many running themes (alienation, paranoia), no two of his films are really alike. The story of this is somewhat similar to his own "Repulsion" from ten years earlier, but the tone is completely different. "The Tenant" manages to balance darker than dark absurdity (I'm a bit hesitant on calling it humor, even though the protagonists bizarre behavior and dialog was occasionally funny) with some truly suspenseful paranoia. Polanski was always a master at building unease, and moments in this film are almost unbearably creepy. The overall weirdness of the film is also a plus.<br /><br />In addition to Polanski's exquisite as usual direction, the rest of the cast and crew offer great contributions. Polanski the actor is often overshadowed by Polanski the director, but his performance here truly captures his characters awkwardness and sense of being an outcast. The themes of social discrimination make this film more than just strangeness for the sake of being strange. The rest of the cast offers strong performances also, especially Isabelle Adjani's sympathetic turn, and Melyvn Douglas and Shelley Winters' appropriately annoying ones. "The Tenant" is often underrated because of how ready people are to heap praise on both "Repulsion" and "Rosemary's Baby", but its just as brilliant as either of those classics. (9/10)

This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong. <br /><br />First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it.... <br /><br />All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed...

When people ask me why do I like movies so much, I usually respond, "have you seen the art-gallery sequence in De Palma's Dressed to Kill?" That scene alone, pretty much represents everything I want to see in a film. If I was a film director, that would be the kind of thing I'd like to do. "Pure cinema" is one way of describing that sequence, and it is truly amazing to see how director De Palma's entire movie works at the same high artistic frequency of that scene. It is a dream-like movie, clever as hell, and with more zest and intelligence than a dozen films put together. I think the movie raises an important point that will always be a topic of heated discussion: could a movie rely solely on technique and still be considered an artistic success? The film has no message to speak of, acting is great but it is at the service of the style, and the script is short on logic. De Palma's movie makes a really good case that style, when handled properly, can sustain a feature length film. Sure, Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon give superlative performances, but this is a director's movie all the way to the fadeout. It is a sensational demonstration of the possibilities of the film medium. I won't tell you what Hitchcock movie the film pays homage to (I don't want to spoil any surprises), but I think De Palma transcends the story's arc, and he manages to create a film that pretty much summarizes his entire career. Not for the faint of heart!

well, i hated knocked up, i despised 40-year-old virgin, and this little gem is a worthless piece of trash movie. do yourself a favor, and skip it. i admit, i don't like the actors in this movie, and after my 18-year-old son showed me the cover of the DVD, i was like, "i wouldn't like that movie," but at his insistence, i decided to give it a try, unfortunately. <br /><br />about two minutes into the movie i turned it off, i was so offended. it's just disgusting. any decent person would be offended by the filth in this movie. call me old fashioned, but shoving your pussy juice-covered hand into your friend's face so he will know you "got some" is over the line of decency, in my opinion. yeah, that's how this putrid little film starts, and i can only imagine it gets much worse from there. another real winner for Mr. Rudd. i bet he's proud as punch. imagine if you could only get worthless roles like he gets, would you stay in movies? despite the pay, i wouldn't. <br /><br />i should have known better; next time i will.

Overall this movie was excellent for its time and will be interesting for many more generations to come. Although the plot is not 100% accurate to the book most everything is correct. The movie does skip far ahead and does miss some important parts. I found the book and ready and immediately wished that they had made a movie (because I hadn't found out about the movie yet) but later I found the movie in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart and decided to buy it and see if it was what I had expected. Overall I give this movies a 7 out of 10 for its good parts (relative accuracy and overall making sense) and for its bad parts (large time skips and small but noticeable inaccuracies).

There was not one original idea in this story. Themes were pulled from various sources; a few being The Ninth Gate, In the Mouth of Madness (another Carpenter film), and The Ring. It even went as far as featuring the same damn glowing circle from The Ring and using it as the film's namesake. The soundtrack by Cody Carpenter was all but lifted from Suspiria. Hopefully no one will oppose this comment by spewing the word HOMAGE around. Yes, I saw that the theater was playing Argento's Deep Red. Claiming an homage would be a bullshit cop-out. This was bottom-of-the-barrel. Throwing gore and "disturbing" imagery into the pot does not make a good horror film. Carpenter used to know that. He should fade into obscurity or acquire a time machine.

Well when watching this film late one night I was simple amazed by it's greatness. Fantastic script, great acting, costumes and special effects, and the plot twists, wow!! In fact if you can see the ending coming you should become a writer yourself.<br /><br />Great, I would recommend this film to anyone, especially if I don;t like them much.<br /><br />Terrific

"CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.<br /><br />The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained. <br /><br />Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.

When I saw this animation for first time (I was 15 maybe) I was really impressed! It has completely different style compared to the japan animation and i kinda like it more. Tho whole impression of the movie is more sinister and dark...The colors are not that ...colorous. The Characters don't talk much, there are no long and boring conversations of this and that (like in Ghost in the Shell).With its dark pictures, views of strange beasts and sense of magic, it looks like one of those ancient Scandinavian stories, full of violence and horrendous creators, enchanted forests and deep caves, dwelled by dragons, throlls, orks...and one mysterious hero to stop evil...

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

Whoever said that horror wasn't an educational film genre, huh? Thanks to this marvelous Hammer short movie, I now at least know NEVER to offer a strange visitor any wine and a slice of bread with salt in my own house, because he might just be hypnotist and this combination will give him the power to control my thoughts & mind forever! Thank you Hammer! The tenth episode in the House of Horror series is another one I've been looking forward to seeing, mainly because the guy in the director's chair was Don Sharp; one of Britain's finest filmmakers but still sadly underrated. Sharp was responsible for some very cool Hammer films, like "Kiss of the Vampire" and "Rasputin: The Mad Monk", as well as some overlooked independent productions like "Dark Places" and "Psychomania". His contribution to House of Horror is easily one of the best in the series, with a complex yet fascinating plot outline and revolving on delightful occult themes. The plot centers on two antique dealers that stumble upon a strange object resembling a mirror, but it's actually an ancient scrying device that can be used to summon Choronzhon; the demonic guardian of the abyss. The mirror is heavily desired by a satanic cult since they need it for their ceremonies, but Michael is reluctant to sell it before knowing the real value of the device. When he picks up a clearly petrified girl who's running from the cult to avoid being sacrificed, Michael is drawn even deeper into an occult conspiracy. Satanic cults and the carnal sacrifice of young women are typical British horror topics, but David Fischer's screenplay is never dull and offers plenty of neat plot twits, among which a highly inventive climax. There's also plenty of tension to admire, the dialogs are wit and the acting performances are splendid (especially John Carson as the leader of the cult is genuinely eerie). Recommended!

If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer. What's the question?", then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian. Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel".<br /><br />Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption. So it seems impressive when someone - anyone - comes along and says, "Hang on, films may say something about ourselves."<br /><br />The ideas Zizek expounds in this film are "true" purely because he says so. For example, Zizek explains that three Marx Bros are the ego, superego and id (God knows what happened to Zeppo, or Gummo … perhaps they're the sinthome...or is that movies themselves?). This is simply what they are. In Zizek's output, culture is not there to be investigated but merely to be held as an example of his ideology. People may object that he certainly has something to say - but how different is what he says from the Christian attributing everything to God's will?<br /><br />What's wrong with taking examples, from films or anywhere, to illustrate theory? Well, nothing at all. As Zizek seems to believe, they may even serve as a proof. However, it is merely cant and propaganda when these examples are isolated from their context. Without context, you can say and prove anything you want. For Zizek, Lacan is the answer – so he goes and makes an example of it. Everything but everything resembles the teachings of the Master and culture is there to bear this out, to serve this ideology. For instance, Zizek's exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur is taken from a scene in Vertigo when Jimmy Stewart spies on Kim Novak in a flower shop. But, in the context of the film, this is not a voyeur's fantasy position at all. Stewart has been deliberately led there by Novak. This presentation of examples isolated from their context continues throughout Zizek's two hour and a half cinematic sermon.<br /><br />His analysis of the "baby wants to f---" scene in Blue Velvet is laughable. Touching lightly on what he appears to consider to be the horrific (to the masculine) truth of "feminine jouissance", Zizek says that Isabella Rossilini's character not only demands her degradation but is, unconsciously, in charge of the situation. This is an example of her "jouissance". Well ... possibly. But - sorry to be prosaic - where is the evidence for this? In the film, she partially undergoes her humiliations because Hopper has kidnapped her son. Zizek may object that she also evidently enjoys rough sex with Kyle MacLachalan. But this may be due to any number of things. Isn't that the point of so-called feminine "jouissance"? According to Lacan, feminine jouissance, unlike phallic jouissance, cannot be articulated, it is beyond the phallic capture and castration of language. If this is right, then no example can be made of it. It also means that the entire concept is non-sensical and entirely mystical. It can only be designated by dogmatists such as Zizek: "There's feminine jouissance for you! Why is this feminine jouissance? Because I say so." <br /><br />What example can really be garnered from these films? Only Zizek's psychology. Why does he keep inserting himself into his favourite films, even to the point that, when in a boat on Botega Bay, he says he wants to f--- Rod Steiger too? Is this not the wish-fulfilment of someone who spends his life critiquing films? As the saying goes, Freud would have a field day with The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema - but with Zizek himself, nobody else.<br /><br />Zizek's theory that films show us how we desire may be right on the face of it, but these films cannot be strict universal examples of psychoanalytical laws. This film illustrates how Zizek desires and only extremely vaguely - as to be almost useless - how the rest of us desire. For, as any psychoanalyst knows, how we desire and what we desire cannot be fully separated - and cannot be easily universalised, if at all. Zizek's love of making everything an example of Lacan's Answer bears this out: how do we desire? like this, this is how I do it. Problem is, in Zizek's desire, everything and everyone else is rationalised into his desire. But Zizek is a Leninist and they certainly don't like letting the "subject" speak for itself.<br /><br />The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema is a summation Zizek's love of dogma and is entirely unphilosophical even if it remains very political (what dogma isn't?). Zizek has never questioned exactly what his motives might be when embarking on an analysis, what he is trying to discover, because the terms of his exploration, and therefore his ethics in doing so, are never put into question.<br /><br />Zizek is extremely prolific but all his books and this film say the same thing. He's a kind of Henry Ford of cultural theory: mass-production and any colour as long as it's black. He is perfect for today's highly consumerist society: supposedly critical while giving people the same c-ap over and over and pretending that it is something different. This is popular because people largely prefer readymade answers to their problems - which capitalism always claims to provide - rather than investigating things with any serious consideration at all. Which is kind of like being brain dead. For me, Zizek's third Matrix pill is a suicide capsule.<br /><br />PS: I loved Zizek's solemn remark - presented as a revelation about cinema and humanity - that music in films can greatly affect people's sympathies. Did this only occur to Zizek after he watched Jaws?

Rob Estes, Josie Bisset and a crap load of kids that look nothing like either of them.<br /><br />Basically, Rob and Josie have a shotgun wedding on a drunken night during a Vegas vacation. They each come home to find that their respective children already know of the nuptials due to tabloid-like not-so-fodder. They, Rob and Josie, move both of them and their eight kids into one or the other's house.<br /><br />Rob builds furniture, I think, which is close enough to Frank Lambert's (Patrick Duffy) construction job on the much similar Step by Step to warrant eternal mockage.<br /><br />Josie is some sort of cookie-making queen, though it doesn't look like she makes any of the cookies. Not close enough to Carol Foster's (Suzanne Somers)hairdressing job to warrant likeness mockage, but hilariously preposterous enough to warrant atrocity mockage.<br /><br />Unlike Step by Step, they were a couple before the vacation and actually knew one another's last names, or so one assumes if their serious enough about a relationship to take a trip together.<br /><br />Anyhow, there are eight kids; Moira, Sandy, Jeff, Lily, Daisy, Nathan, Andrew L. and Andrew B. I, personally, think they should've just called the younger Andrew 'Andy'.<br /><br />There's a lot of product placement, particularly for Soup at Hand (Which is disgusting) and Listerine Pocket Packs. There are also some stupid, senseless moments. It's also not a great film to promote happy families.<br /><br />But, hey! Rob Estes! This concludes my review of 'Step By Step... on some really bad drugs.' Watch it for Rob Estes and his pretty!eyes. There are some great pretty!eyes shots.

I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for……. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.

Perhaps the best Isabel Allende's book, House of the Spirits describes an alternative chilean history, this one full of magic, a mystic veil, plus some kind of omnipresent sadness. This movie gathers a great cast, plus a great art direction, with a script that cannot contain all this book's quality. It's unusual for a nearly unknown country like Chile to get so well represented as it is by this movie, whose perhaps only sin is to aim too high, and because of that left the illiterate public a little upset, mostly because they understood very little.

MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½* <br /><br />Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence) <br /><br />By Blake French: <br /><br /> Believe it or not, in the new John Warren comedy "MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said. <br /><br />This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny. <br /><br />How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in "Air Bud: Golden Receiver," and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least "Air Bud" was family oriented. "Major League Back to the Minors" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?<br /><br /> The film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own "buddy comedy routine" muttering one liners to themselves like "They suck," "This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass," "This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind," "Somebody needs a nap," and "ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play." Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.<br /><br /> "Major League Back to the minors" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: "You're too old, too slow, and too fat." The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money. <br /><br />So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again.<br /><br />

I saw this film in the worst possible circumstance. I'd already missed 15 minutes when I woke up to it on an international flight between Sydney and Seoul. I didn't know what I was watching, I thought maybe it was a movie of the week, but quickly became riveted by the performance of the lead actress playing a young woman who's child had been kidnapped. The premise started taking twist and turns I didn't see coming and by the end credits I was scrambling through the the in-flight guide to figure out what I had just watched. Turns out I was belatedly discovering Do-yeon Jeon who'd won Best Actress at Cannes for the role. I don't know if Secret Sunshine is typical of Korean cinema but I'm off to the DVD store to discover more.

As myself and my other half are big fans of trash horror we couldn't resist getting out a movie that contained both of the greats we were thrilled! However for a 2004 movie with a rip off cover of Freddy Vs Jason this is a disgrace! The worst film I have ever seen but worth a look for a laugh if you are able to sit through it!<br /><br />The acting is awful the effects...well I could do better on my camcorder in fact its so bad they only bothered to put make up on the zombies faces and left out neck, hands etc. No story line, weird flashbacks that make no sense and terrible script!<br /><br />"you broke my tooth!" from one vampire "you broke my cigar" was the response from the human who looked like uncle Jessie from Dukes crossed with Santa!

This movie is up there with the all-time classics. The music, camera shots, and acting are excellent. Showing the movie in black and white gave it a much better appearance and complemented the music perfectly, like Psycho. Its surprising how so few people have commented on this movie. My guess is that its a hard movie to find. I gave the film a 9. See the movie and you'll know what I'm talking about.

OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).<br /><br />As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.<br /><br />If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.<br /><br />All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.

Having seen and loved Greg Lombardo's most recent film "Knots" (he co-wrote and directed that feature as well), I decided to check out his earlier work, and this movie was well worth the effort and rental. Macbeth in Manhattan is a tongue in cheek, excellent take on the Shakespeare favorite, updated and moved to NYC. I was impressed by the underlying wit and intelligence of the script and was wowed by the way the storyline of the production in the movie mirrors the storyline of the play itself - and very cleverly at that. The trials and tribulations of life in Manhattan parallel many a Shakespeare play, and Central Park was rarely put to better use than as the woods around Macbeth's castle. Mr. Lombardo obviously has a fond place in his heart for New York and New York stories (Knots is a funny and warm sex comedy about six thirty-something New Yorkers set primarily in a charming Brooklyn neighborhood, with Manhattan offices and a downtown loft thrown in for good measure) and has spent considerable time around the plays of Shakespeare. The movie is well-paced and the story reflects a deep understanding of the essential drama at the core of Macbeth. It reminded me of Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" - another wonderful Shakespeare "play within a movie." I highly recommend checking out Macbeth in Manhattan.

Weak Bobby "Pineapple Salsa" Flay and Mario Batali bring this down.<br /><br />Flay being the worst. Definitely a one trick pony, I think they could have gotten other American chefs to come to the table on this one as the Iron Chefs. The kind of dishes this duo come up with really...don't reflect on the creativity of the original Iron Chef Series. I don't think Batali even went to chef school, actually. There are a lot of great chefs in America, I just wonder why they don't appear on the Food Network.<br /><br />It would also help to have more regional ingredients and perhaps co-hosts who can handle the pressure. I like Alton Brown, but he is a bit too flippant/funny for this role.

Two women, sick of their controlling husbands, taking a vacation in Italy for a month with two other very different women.They come back refreshed and energized in this wonderful little film by Merchant - Ivory.<br /><br />Great scenery and the location isn't bad either. Seriously, a very good period piece 7 of 10

I've seen this movie today for the first time and I never heard of it before, probably because of it's poor message. <br /><br />First of all, the directing itself is quite good, the actors played well and the CGI (I'm not a fan of CGI) is magnificent. But that alone doesn't make a movie. No story at all, no message behind beautiful exploited talents.<br /><br />Or do I have to make people remember, the art of a director is not only your vision but to know how to tell a story. And this is what's missing the whole 7 minutes.<br /><br />There for a simple 4 rating.

This movie is wonderful. It always has been always will be. I'm mean really what is better then a house maid falling in love. Walt really out did him self here. And the music! A dream is a wish your heart makes is beautiful! What else can you say besides terrific! I can't wait until the special edition comes out it will be so awesome! I can't wait to hear all of the deleted songs! This movie is done so beautiful and smart! It is lovely. What about the cute mice too! I know i keep saying the same things over and over and over again but hey this is a great movie! Woods was terrific in this beautiful beautiful BEAUTIFUL movie

****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****<br /><br />A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.<br /><br />The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.<br /><br />The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. <br /><br />The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this?

At first I was weirded out that a TV show's main character could bring the dead back to life, but then I thought I'd give it a shot. Guess what? I love "Pushing Daisies" and look forward to Wednesday nights just to watch it, then for the next week I watch it a few more times on my DVR. The colorful characters, witty banter, fast-paced dialogue, and new unique situations draws me in and captivates from beginning to end. Ned and Chuck Charles' relationship is interesting to watch as they work their romance around the fact that they cannot have physical contact. Even Detective Emerson Cod's character has continued to grow in complexity. And Olive Snook! Jiminy Crispies! She cracks me up! The narrator's voice is fun to listen to and the cinematography gives me the impression that I am watching a movie instead of a TV show. I have recommended my family and friends to turn on "Pushing Daisies" and they are hooked too!!! The show is well worth waiting a week for a new episode and if you have not seen "P.D.", I highly recommend watching it!

This film ends with a speech in which the narrator tells us the fates of two of the lead characters and that the names of people and places have been changed...before telling us that relation to actual people and events are purely coincidental. This ending line actually sums up everything that has gone before it; as Rino Di Silvestro's messy film completely lacks vision, and if there is any point to the plot; it wasn't put there on purpose. Werewolf Woman is often seen as a guilty pleasure or a 'so bad it's good' film, but I completely disagree. Normally, I enjoy films like this; but Werewolf Woman is indeed a bad film, and despite all the sex and savagery on display; it doesn't even make for a fun watch, and that really is unforgivable. The film really doesn't have much plot, but the thin sliver we are given involves a young woman, who also happens to dream that she is a werewolf. She dreams of going out and finding men, having sex with them and eventually killing them. Back in the real world, she falls in love, but her lover is killed and she goes out for revenge...<br /><br />The film is made up of scenes of sex and gore, which are padded out with extremely dull talking sequences in which various characters mull over the recent events. These scenes are probably there to forward the plot and build characters; but they really don't do that, and succeed only in turning what could have been a passable exploitation romp into an extremely underwhelming film. It would seem that the director was more interested in style and atmosphere than the plot, and this is shown by the fact that the film looks and sounds nice. The sex scenes are often overlong and not very erotic, but the gore works well. The premise is ripe for giving way to a very sexy slice of exploitation, as there's plenty of naked women, and the fact that the central character has a werewolf origin means that there could be plenty of erotica; but this isn't capitalised on, and while I can stomach huge doses of bad acting and poorly done plot lines, I really can't stand watching films and being bored. Overall, I wouldn't even recommend this film to big exploitation fans. There's plenty of better stuff than this out there, and while the title may sound intriguing - the film isn't.

New York playwright Michael Caine (as Sidney Bruhl) is 46-years-old and fading fast; as the film opens, Mr. Caine's latest play flops on Broadway. TV reviewers poke fun at Caine, and he gets drunk. Passing out on the Long Island Railroad lands Caine in Montauk, instead of his residence in East Hampton. Finally arriving home, Caine is comforted by tightly-attired wife Dyan Cannon (as Myra), an unfortunately high-strung heart patient. There, Caine and Ms. Cannon discuss a new play called "Deathtrap", written by hunky young Christopher Reeve (as Clifford "Cliff" Anderson), one of Caine's former students. The couple believe Mr. Reeve's "Deathtrap" is the hit needed to revive Caine's career.<br /><br />"The Trap Is Set… For A Wickedly Funny Who'll-Do-It." <br /><br />Directed by Sidney Lumet, Ira Levin's long-running Broadway hit doesn't stray too far from its stage origin. The cast is enjoyable and the story's twists are still engrossing. One thing that did not work (for me) was the curtain call ending; surely, it played better on stage. "Deathtrap" is a fun film to watch again; the performances are dead on - but, in hindsight, the greeting Reeve gives Caine at the East Hampton train station should have been simplified to a smiling "Hello." The location isn't really East Hampton, but the windmill and pond look similar. And, the much ballyhooed love scene is shockingly tepid. But, the play was so good, "even a gifted director couldn't ruin it." And, Mr. Lumet doesn't disappoint.<br /><br />******** Deathtrap (3/19/82) Sidney Lumet ~ Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Irene Worth

This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.<br /><br />Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show. <br /><br />Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional.

If you have trouble dreaming you may give this movie a low rating. But you just have to realize this movie was not made to please everyone,<br /><br />just people with a sense of humor.<br /><br />For those people the movie is great! It plays on old Science fiction movies and radio shows long gone, most of witch where B-rated themselves. Along the lines of Spaceballs and Airplane 2, you may need to stretch your imagination a little bit to get the jokes, but it is well worth it.

Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, "hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean "unusual" in a good way.<br /><br />From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those "trippy camera effect" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.<br /><br />The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this "trip" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.<br /><br />I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.<br /><br />Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.