Datasets:

denis1203

/

balanced_imdb_dataset_1000

like 0

I'm not a follower of a certain movie genre. I classify movies only as industrial or non-industrial. Valentine is the second industrial movie of the director Jamie Blanks, after his Urban Legends. Unlike Urban Legends the screenplay and the story line is very weak. Yet again unlike Urban Legends the basic elements of the movie is so dashing and iconic, and that is what makes Valentine the best. <br /><br />As the first basic and iconic element, the growing hatred of the serial killer is so down-to-earth. Since his secondary school years, he has grown up with his wounds he had accumulated in his soul against his classmate girlfriends, who have made fun of him. When you concentrate enough on this first element while watching the movie, you will come to see this point of view of Humanism: "Noone is entirely good or evil. In fact, somebody known as evil can be secretly kind hearted." Just because the story line and the direction is very weak, we are not as satisfied as we deserved. <br /><br />The second iconic element is, of course, the magnificent togetherness of the late 90s' super starlets: My favourite is Jessica Cauffiel who is killed within the coolest way to be killed. An arrow shot from a bow broaches her tummy and stays stuck in, while she was playing hide-and-seek with her blind date, never able to met with. Katherine Heigl is the first starlet getting killed in a biology laboratory while trying to hide under human body models lying on the surgical operation tables. Denise Richards is killed third, while she just found a Valentines' Day gift for her at a whirlpool bath. Jessica Capshaw is killed last in a confidential and unseen way, then she is calumniated to be as the serial killer. Marley Shelton is the unluckiest one with a vicissitude of fortune that she is going to be killed within the most confidential way that we will never know, 'cause the movie is coming to an end before she is getting killed. Finally, Benita Ha is the luckiest one since she was not a classmate of the serial killer, David Boreanaz.<br /><br />The third and the last iconic element is the soundtrack from the blind date labyrinth scene, the Valentines' Day celebration at Dorothy's house scenes and ultimately the killing themes. Everybody has loved the soundtrack as far as I know. Hard Rock never suits better within a serial killer-mystery movie.

I used this film in a religion class I was teaching. The golden fish is swimming happily in his bowl in an upper floor apartment. A young boy and his mother are away from home. The boy has been given money to buy milk. On the way home, he stops at carnival to play a game. Next to him stands a man in a black suit looking a little scary. The boy drops the bottle of milk. It breaks. The man in the black suit gives him money to replace the milk. This scene alternates with what is happening at home. A black cat climbs the fire escape and enters the apartment. He(?) discovers the fish bowl and watches it. The fish swims energetically and flips out of the bowl. By now, a bunch of teenagers in my class and I have fallen in love with the fish. The cat takes the fish in his mouth and we all hold our breath. The cat drops the fish into the bowl. The double story line includes the suspicious man in black and the suspicious black cat. Both inspire prejudice. Both are innocent. It was a great discussion starter in my class.

I'm stunt, I must admit I never saw a movie with such good story and none stop high special effect martial art fighting scene. If you like the fantastic genre, like me, you will certainly be more than satisfied! All character have very cool power and the special effect are near perfection, in one word, flawless! I will listen to this movie a lot in the next years.

This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it<br /><br />was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,<br /><br />not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards<br /><br />was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)<br /><br />we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and<br /><br />judge it yourself.

If only to avoid making this type of film in the future. This film is interesting as an experiment but tells no cogent story.<br /><br />One might feel virtuous for sitting thru it because it touches on so many IMPORTANT issues but it does so without any discernable motive. The viewer comes away with no new perspectives (unless one comes up with one while one's mind wanders, as it will invariably do during this pointless film).<br /><br />One might better spend one's time staring out a window at a tree growing.<br /><br />

At first this looked like a boring comedy like The Odd Couple, but when I got into it it turned out to be a really funny film. Basically forgetful ex-comedians Willy Clark (Golden Globe winner, and Oscar and BAFTA nominated Walter Matthau) and Al Lewis (Oscar winning, and Golden Glove nominated George Burns) were a great comedy duo, and a brought back together to revive their hospital sketch for a TV show. Willy's nephew, Ben Clark (Golden Globe winning Richard Benjamin) is confident they can get together again with no hard feelings for each other, how wrong he is. They cannot get on all the time, they are both forgetful, especially during conversation, but they do it eventually. Also starring Lee Meredith as Nurse in Sketch (Miss McIntosh), Carol DeLuise as Mrs. Doris Green, Al's Daughter, Rosetta LeNoire as Odessa, Willy's nurse and Muppets from Space's F. Murray Abraham as Mechanic. I think the best line of the film is Burns mentioning that Matthau called him "a son of a bitch bastard". It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Writing, Screenplay Adapted From Other Material, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Screenplay, and it won the Golden Globe Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy, and it was nominated for Best Screenplay. Very good!

The stories in this video are very entertaining, and it definately is worth a look! The first one concerns a young couple harrassed in the woods by two rednecks, with a great, but unexplained twist at the end.<br /><br />The seond is the best of the lot, and it alone, makes this worth watching - A man is attacked by a dog, which he fears to be rabid - He finds shelter in what appears to be a hospital, but he finds out the employees there are not exactly what they appear to be...... Great twist at the end, and this episode alone scores 10/10! If the others were up to par with this one, this would get 10/10!<br /><br />The third is the weakest of the bunch - A girl meets with some guys and has wild sex! There appears to be no point to the story until the end, with a good little twist, but it is spoiled by the awful first part!<br /><br />Never the less, this is a great movie that will not do you wrong at all! Well worth a rental!

If you look at Corey Large's information here on IMDb, apparently there's a movie called "Reload" in production (as of June '08) in which he's playing a character named Sebastian Cole.<br /><br />First of all, how does such a crappy movie ever earn a sequel ... and second, didn't Sebastian get killed at the end of "Loaded"?<br /><br />I watched this in the wee hours of the morning when I was battling insomnia, and so I was drifting in and out while it was on. I'm sure I missed some plot points, but overall, it seemed really weak. Large's performance was (for me) one of the stronger parts of the film. I'm also a bit surprised at all the people commenting on the beautiful girls, since I thought the actress playing Brooke was pretty, but not exceptional.

Storyline: Max von Sydow's voice-over narration hypnotizes the protagonist (and audience) back to 1945 where our protagonist the young American ideologist Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr) has just arrived in post-WWII 1945 Germany to help rebuilding the damaged country. Uncle Kessler (Ernst-Hugo Järegård) supplies Leopold with a job in the big Zentropa train corporation, but soon Leopold falls in love with Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa); daughter of Zentropa owner Max Hartmann (Jørgen Reenberg). Leopold soon finds himself caught in a web of corruption, being taken advantage of, losing his ideology, and is forced to chose between pest or colera.<br /><br />Mysterious, mesmerizing, manipulative, noirish, haunting, beautiful, and ugly. These are some immediate, grandiose, descriptions that come to mind when thinking of Lars von Trier's 1991 masterpiece EUROPA; the final chapter of the Europa trilogy. In USA it was retitled ZENTROPA so audiences wouldn't confuse it with Agnieszka Holland's EUROPA EUROPA from 1990 (equally a WWII drama). The Europa trilogy also consists of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984 and EPIDEMIC from 1987 (the infamous experiment that only sold 900 tickets in the Danish cinemas). The trilogy thematically deals with hypnotism and loss of idealism, although the themes of this trilogy are not as essential as the visuals. In the opening-shot of EUROPA we see a locomotive moving towards us while our unidentified narrator literally hypnotizes us: "On the mental count of ten, you will be in Europa. Be there at ten. I say: ten". A metaphor for movies' ability to transport us into a subconscious dream-reality.<br /><br />EUROPA utilizes a strange but extremely effective visual style -- that famous Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky is Trier's main-influence says it all. It's a black-and-white movie occasionally intertwined with red in form of blood, a red dress etc. According to rumors this inspired Steven Spielberg to use the similar effect in SHINDLER'S LIST from 1993 (coincidentially another WWII drama). Furthermore Trier uses so-called Dutch angels and reinvents background-projection by adding separately shot co-operating layers upon layers, but unlike old Hollywood movies that incorporated it for economical reasons, Trier uses it for artistic reasons. These carefully executed strange-looking visual techniques underline that we are in a dream-reality, we are hypnotized; the universe of EUROPA is not real! EUROPA is often criticized for weighing advanced technique (such as multi-layered background-projection) above plot and characters, but hey that's what reviewers criticized Stanley Kubrick's 1968 visual masterpiece 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY for -- nowadays it holds an obligatory place in all cinema-history books.<br /><br />EUROPA also gets accused of historical incorrectness. Apparently Trier assigns the Nazis' Werewolf terrorist-group too much historical significance. According to various online-sources that's correct (a fascinating subject - try Googl'ing it yourself!), yet Trier's purposes are neither educational nor portraying history accurately. EUROPA is a never-ending nightmare. Leopold Kessler is hypnotized, therefore the universe that the audience encounters is a distorted reality. Equally it shows how our memory deceives us -- a 100% accurate reconstruction is a lie! Although young audiences who experience EUROPA are too young to have memories from WWII, we have a collective memory of it from various BBC documentaries, so these small inaccuracies actually serve a purpose: they inform us us that we are not in post-WWII Germany 1945, but in Leopolds memory of it.<br /><br />All three Europa trilogy chapters portray young ideologists with noble intentions forced into corruption and losing their ideological innocence. The ambiguous endings of FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT and EUROPA show the ideologists getting forever caught in their hypnotized realities. Before, during and after shooting EUROPA in 1990 in Poland, Lars von Trier and co-writer Niels Vørsel were extremely interested in WWII. It shows. It's packed with extremely beautiful shots catching the atmosphere of the time-period spot-on. A great example is the old Polish church (EUROPA was shot in Poland primarily for economic reasons) in the last act of EUROPA. As with 2001: SPACE ODYSSEY I think EUROPA will receive it's rightfully deserved place in cinema-history. Its method of twisting old film-noir love-affair clichés and visual techniques is so unique, strange and completely different from anything you will see from Hollywood nowadays, or any other dream-factory for that matter.<br /><br />EUROPA is an essential movie in the Lars von Trier catalog. Some write it off as pure commercial speculation, but that would be catastrophic. It's right up there with other Trier classics and semi-classics such as FORBRYDELSENS ELEMENT from 1984, the TV-series RIGET from 1993 and DOGVILLE from 2003. It's a unique experience from before Trier cared for his actors, and before the Dogme95 Manifesto. Watch it! "On the count of ten..." 9/10

This movie had the potential to be far more than it was. But it not only fails to deliver, it brings up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time.<br /><br />John Cusack is even flatter than he was in Midnight of the Garden of Good and Evil. The difference is that this time he is supposed to have an southern accent, which he noticeably loses several times each scene.<br /><br />Al Pacino does his shtick but seems to be walking through this film and collecting a paycheck. He's good as usual but hardly standout.<br /><br />Supporting cast -- throw in female romantic interest which added little, if anything, to the story. Speaking of the story, a convoluted "who really cares" tale where Cusack is the self-righteous Mayor's boy who just has to search for "the right thing" to be done.<br /><br />People don't act this way. Cusack's character loses all credibility at the end, of which without revealing it, is preach and nauseous. The final scene makes the penultimate silliness seem profound. It's also completely inaccurate but I won't get into law.<br /><br />This is a bad, by the numbers movie. It seems interesting for the first 40 minutes and then it's really a preachy, proselytizing, self-righteous film for the last hour. Better off with mindless crap than this pile of junk.

This was the first movie that Joan Crawford and Clark Gable made together and they would go on to make several more. Crawford stars a young rich girl who's father is wiped out in the stock market crash and there is nothing left for her and her brother. They have never worked before and the brother, William Bakewell, gets a job with Gable, who is a gangster and Bakewell thinks it will be an easy job but gets in over his head pretty quick. Crawford becomes a reporter at a newspaper but wants to work on the big stories but is given worthless stuff to work on. Their is a massacre in which several of Gable's men are killed and Crawford was a witness to the whole thing. It's a good movie but not one of their best.

Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better "Murder, She Wrote", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years. I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show. Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993. He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking. His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.

This silly movie is really fun for the younger audiences. Its heros are a couple of dud detectives whose sophomoric attitudes lead them down some very silly roads. Chasing the big murder case, you will see these detectives go to every length to solve the crime. No nudity, but lots of sexual implication, slapstick silliness...everything adolescents go for. Low budget, but very entertaining. Definite cult classic potential.

Sometimes a movie is so comprehensively awful it has a destructive effect on your morale. You begin to really ask yourself, what does it mean for our society that the standard is so terribly low? Can they honestly expect that we'll endure this many clichés and still be entertained?<br /><br />Of course, it is still a Hollywood mainstay to make the GUN the major character, plot device, and the source of all conflict and resolution in films. Character needs a gun. Gets a gun. Can't do that because he has a gun. Puts his gun down first. OH MY GOD What are we going to do!? He has a gun! He waves it around, acting more malicious than real human beings ever do. He pushes it in someone's face for 90 minutes, shouting questions. The hallmark of any conclusion will be the comforting sound of police sirens. <br /><br />It's a real challenge to make such a tired, hackneyed formula work again; a film has to be very clever and well executed. This one is neither. It has no life and no personality, and it will suck these components from YOU. it will make you feel WORSE about living in the time and space that you do. Really, who needs that!? So yes, I'll say it: I think this may well be the worst film I have ever seen. Anyone who was involved in the making of this sub- mediocre soul killing trash should be publicly embarrassed for the disservice they've done to us all.

I rented I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW from my video store because of all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first released in 1967. I also heard that at first it was seized by U.S. customs if it ever tried to enter this country, therefore being a fan of films considered "controversial" I really had to see this for myself.<br /><br />The plot is centered around a young Swedish drama student named Lena who wants to learn everything she can about life. In particular she wants to focus her attentions to making some sort of documentary on what the average Swede thought about certain political issues such as the Vietnam War and race issues in the United States. In between asking politicians and ordinary denizens of Stockholm about their opinions on politics, she has sex with her drama teacher, classmates, and married men.<br /><br />What kills me about I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is that 40 years ago, this was considered pornographic. Really, the sex and nudity scenes are few and far between, even then it's not shot like some cheaply made porno. While my countrymen mind find it shocking, in reality sex and nudity are a major staple in Swedish cinema. Even Ingmar Bergman, arguably their answer to good old boy John Ford, had sex scenes in his films.<br /><br />I do commend the filmmakers for the fact that any sex shown in the film is shown for artistic purposes rather than just to shock people and make money to be shown in pornographic theaters in America. I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is a good film for anyone wanting to study the meat and potatoes (no pun intended) of Swedish cinema. But really, this film doesn't have much of a plot.

Nice character development in a pretty cool milieu. Being a male, I'm probably not qualified to totally understand it, but they do a nice job of establishing the restrictive Victorian environment from the start. It isn't as bleak as it really was and the treatment of women was probably even harsher. What makes this go is a wonderful chemistry among the principal characters. Each has their own "thing" that they contend with. Once they come out of the rain and break out of the spider webs, they begin to interact and slowly lose their sense of suspicion. What I enjoyed about this movie is that it didn't go for cheap comedy when it could have. It didn't try to pound a lesson into us. The people who seem utterly without merit are really nicely developed human beings who get to see the light. I did have a little trouble with the Alfred Molina character having such an epiphany so quickly, but, within this world, it needed to happen. Good acting all around with something positive taking place in the lives of some pretty good people.

I remember when this film was up for the Academy Awards and did not win in any category. For the life of me, I cannot remember what it was up against, but one thing I can say: It was one of the best movies I have ever seen. And the fact that Steven Spielberg directed the film did not persuade me one bit.<br /><br />Essentially, it is about a black woman's trials and tribulations as she is growing up from a girl to a woman. There are a lot of insinuations that are disturbing and horrifying, but all of them are needed to see how much this woman has put up with. Along the way, we see other women who have had to put up with their hardships and walk with them to redemption. Whoopi Goldberg gives her best performance ever in this movie. Danny Glover should have also gotten at least nominated for his role in this film. <br /><br />And the best part of this movie is that it treats its subjects humanely, not like some sideshow freak shows like the more recent "Beloved" did. I encourage anyone of any race to see this film. 9/10

this is one amazing movie!!!!! you have to realize that chinese folklore is complicated and philosophical. there are always stories behind stories. i myself did not understand everything but knowing chinese folklore (i studied them in school)it is very complicated. you just have to take what it gives you.....ENJOY THE MOVIE AND ENJOY THE RIDE....HOORAY!!!!

The industry dropped the ball on this. The trailer does not do the movie justice and when this opened it was on a hand full of screens. Had people had an opportunity to see this, work of mouth would have made it very successful. The 2 lead actresses each give great emotional performances that really draw you in to the story and especially the characters. I checked this out based on the rave recommendation Richard Roeper or (Ebert and Roeper) in his book. An example of a great film that never got fully released except on a few screens. Which gave it no chance to be seen. Some movies go to video quickly because they aren't that good. This is Oscar worthy and it's a tragedy on many levels that most will never even hear of it. Maybe via word of mouth it will gain a following on DVD or cable. If you haven't see this movie you should. Great performances of the 2 lead actresses make this movie. It could have just been another formulaic teen movie after school special but instead it stands up well to other note worthy films. Girl Interrupted comes to mind. If you like that you will like this. <br /><br />Both girls are in one amazing emotional scene after another without coming off as melodramatic. Even though Alicia is angry and Deanna is crying through most of the movie it is done is such a real way that they do not come off as stereotypical characters or as melodramatic. The movie will move you in many scenes and if you are an aspiring actor use these real performances as your school. Erica is even better in this than in Traffic. I hope both of these actors get more roles that utilize their talents as well and let them shine. See this movie and if you like, recommend to friends so it doesn't get lost among all the blockbuster crap that comes out every year. This movie was buried while Spiderman 2 tops records. What kind of word are we living in? AGHhh. So to make the world right again see this and recommend it.

There are bad movies, terrible movies even boring movies...I can watch most and put up until the end, not this time. Avoid this like the plague, annoying music throughout, terrible editing, no comedy, its tackier than a novelty mug...My missus wanted to watch this thinking it would be Legally Blonde material or something kind of watchable, but never better than average, chick flick. Its the first time she was begging me to push the stop button.<br /><br />The Girls, well, they were not great to start with (Denise done OK in Starship Troopers and Wild things) but you have sank to the gravel. I feel like a mug having spent 30 minutes on this...Pamela Anderson is almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face.<br /><br />Please take my advice if you want to avoid wasting valuable oxygen and brain cells ranting at the utter mince that is on your screen.

This is without a doubt the greatest film ever made. It is nearly incomprehensible even with many repeated viewings in an attempt to figure out what exactly's going on. The film was almost entirely improvised and includes random musical numbers, commercials, contests one enters by mail, and a host of other innovations. Besides, what other movies have cameos by Martin Luther King, Jr? To decipher the film, hunt down the director's book entitled I Was Curious. It'll all become clear. It's a grand and bold experiment in improvised recursive filmmaking. A triumph. Now if only someone would put out a version with the subtitles in a color *other* than white...the white subtitles tend to wash out and become invisible.

There are lots of extremely good-looking people in this movie. That's probably the best thing about it. Perhaps that even makes it worth watching.<br /><br />"Loaded" tells the story of Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe), a young man who's about to make his mark on the world. He's the son of a well-to-do family with a good reputation, and he's on his way to law school. But like so many such settings, things aren't quite as perfect as they appear. The expectations in this family far outweigh the love. Except for school, Tristan's father rarely lets him leave the house. This seems to be the result of some past traumatic event that shook the family, which is partially revealed through flashbacks but isn't spelled out until the very end. Tristan's claustrophobic environment causes him to let loose in very extreme ways at the first possible opportunity, when his friends take him out to a strip club to celebrate his graduation. The celebration soon follows some strippers back to a beach house party, and from there, Tristan befriends Sebastian Cole (Corey Large), who pulls him into a drug dealing underworld.<br /><br />While technically well-made, this movie suffers from a lackluster script and a storyline that isn't very engaging. Also counting against this film are some constant camera tricks that generally seemed annoying and out-of-place, such as slow-motion, fast-motion, freeze-frames and echos. These are the types of effects a director might normally utilize to show a character's perspective while on drugs, except in this case they seem to have been sporadically tossed in at random points, in some cheap attempt at style.<br /><br />Despite its cast of relative unknowns, performances were good all around, most notably with respect to the main antagonist (Corey Large). I suspect we'll be seeing at least a couple of these people in bigger and better projects in the future.<br /><br />Of course, when mentioning the actors, I must mention their looks. Rating based on hotness, this movies scores an 11. The women in this movie are incredible-looking and almost distract you from what a boring movie you're watching. I'm sure the male characters are also quite attractive, but you'll have to ask someone else to comment on that.<br /><br />Overall, I can't recommend this movie, not for buying, renting, or even seeing for free. It's unfortunately just not worth the effort it takes to sit through.

One of my all time favourite films, ever. Just beautiful, full of human emotion, wit, humour, intelligence. The story grows, as does the lesson of life, just a wonderful film in so many ways.<br /><br />The cast are also fantasic..... a great selection of the finest British talent around. I loved them all for every diverse element brought into the film.<br /><br />Italy has to be one of the most romantic places to form a story such as this, - everything about this film works.<br /><br /> I love it :)

This movie is a great way for the series to finally end. Peter (the boy from Puppet Master III) is all grown up and is now the Puppet Master. Well, this girl comes to destroy the puppets and learn Toulon's secrets but instead she listens to the story about the puppets. Most of this movie is footage from Puppet Master II, Puppet Master III, Puppet Master 4, Puppet Master 5, Curse of the Puppet Master, and Retro Puppet Master (sorry... But I guess Paramount wouldn't let them use scenes from 1). Personally I wish Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys would finally be made but the way this movie ends they basically say "This is THE final movie in the series..."

I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.

I watch most movies that Nick Mancuso is in because, frankly, I love the guy, even though as he ages he is typically cast as the baddie (long-time fans should note that he is for some reason blond in this flick). It's a fairly familiar movie in terms of plot (but then most movies these days aren't exactly original), but Rick Roberts is appealing as the imperfect husband, Martha MacIsaac is equally appealing as the daughter, and Mitzi Kapture does a good job, if that was her goal, of being angry and sometimes pretty hard to like. Nick has still got it in terms of being able to demonstrate both charm and psychosis. However, too much of the plot takes place off-screen -- like motivation, prior behaviors, good times and bad times -- and things that seem apparent to the characters never quite make it to the audience (i.e., me). The final scene leaves everything to be desired in the "but what about..." category, and overall, I can't say that I cared much about any of the characters. That being said, it was what it was -- a reasonably entertaining way to spend the afternoon -- and I still like Nick.

A pot - boiler if ever I saw one. A supposed thriller borrowing from "A Time to Kill", "Silence of the Lambs", even an inverted "In the Heat of the Night" with a little reverse murder, a la "Strangers on a Train" thrown in, it fails abysmally where all the above, to a large degree, succeeded. Namely, in delivering thrills. The plot seems condensed from a bigger book, making the plot developments obvious and uninvolving, while the direction lacks pace and verve. To rein in any kudos, a major twist had to be delivered along the way and here it fails palpably too. Connery is clearly slowing down in his old age, barely bothering with his attempt at a US accent and besides seems too old to be the husband of Hope Lange and the father of those gosh - darn kids of his. He even has a father in law who seems younger than him. Laurence Fishburne barely gets the chance to inhabit his role and you're confused from the outset as to whether he's a bad guy or a good guy. Someone once said that flashbacks shouldn't lie - they do, confusedly, here. The rest of the playing is merely average by a reasonable cast in their underwritten stereotyped roles. The supposed climax managed too, to roll by leaving me firmly entrenched in the back, not as should have been the aim, front edge of my seat. Mediocre sloppy Hollywood film making for sure.

Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :(

I just saw "Valentine" and I have to say that it was the best slasher movie that I've seen in years. Unlike the recent trend of 90's horror flicks, this movie is more concerned with being eerie than it is with being self-mocking. For those out there that hated "Scream," there is not one reference to "the horror rules" in this movie (even though the old slasher movie rules do apply here). <br /><br />This is the perfect blend of 80's and 90's horror. You get the style, cinematography, and good acting of 90's films and the stalking-slasher madness of an 80's flick. I guess the year 2001 is going to finally give horror fans the kind of movies they were longing for. This is definitely a move in the right direction.<br /><br />Denise Richards stands out here as a fun character. You can tell she liked her role, and that makes her stand out. I loved her in this movie.

There are only two movies I would give a 1/10 to, this stinker and "The Man who Fell to Earth." I remember seeing Protocol at a theater in the early 80s when I was in high school. The script is insulting to anyone (including a high school student's) intelligence. It completely lost me with the "hillarious" gag of someone getting shot in the butt. Goldie Hawn is supposed to be charming but comes across as vapid and moronic. Then there are offensive stereotypes about Arabs, followed by Goldie winning over everyone by spouting populist dribble. The acting was terrible, including Goldie Hawn's. I could not stand to see another movie she was in until IMO she redeemed herself in Everyone Says I Love You. This is the kind of movie you make if you want to put no effort into screenplay writing. The worst.

I used to LOVE this movie as a kid but, seeing it again 20+ years later, it actually sucks. Up The Academy might have been ahead of it's time back in 1980, but it has almost nothing to offer today! Movies like Caddyshack and Stripes hold-up much better today than this steaming dogpile. No T&A. No great jokes except for the one-liners we've all heard a million times by now.<br /><br />I recently bought the DVD in hopes that it would be the gem I remembered it being. Well, I was WAY off! The soundtrack had only 2-3 widely-recognizable hits (not the smash compilation others had mentioned) and the frequent voice-overs were terrible. The only thing that was interesting, to me, was predicting what the character's lines were before they said them. Yep, I watched this movie that much back then! <br /><br />The only reason I am writing this review is to give my two cents on why this movie should be forgotten, sorry to say. :(

This is one of Joan Crawford's best Talkies. It was the first Gable-Crawford pairing, and made it evident to MGM and to audiences that they were a sizzling team, leading the studio to make seven more films with them as co-stars.<br /><br />The film convincingly depicts the downward slide of a brother and sister who, after their father loses everything in the stock market crash, must fend for themselves and work for a living. Life is hard in the Depression, and soon even their attempts at finding legitimate work prove futile, and they resort to underworld activity. <br /><br />Joan Crawford is excellent as the socialite-turned-moll. She's smart, complex, and believable. She even tempers the theatrical stiffness of the other actors' early Talkie acting style. Clark Gable is a diamond-in-the rough, masculine and gruff as the no-nonsense gangster who becomes involved with Crawford's character. The same year he would play a similar and even more successful role opposite Norma Shearer in "A Free Soul", securing his position as top male sex symbol at MGM.<br /><br />If you like Crawford in this type of role, don't miss "Paid", which she did a year earlier, which is also among her best early Talkie performances.<br /><br />

This is the worst thing the TMNT franchise has ever spawned. I was a kid when this came out and I still thought it was deuce, even though I liked the original cartoon.<br /><br />There's this one scene I remember when the mafia ape guy explains to his minions what rhetorical questions are. It's atrocious. Many fans hate on the series for including a female turtle, but that didn't bother me. So much so that I didn't even remember her until I read about the show recently. All in all, it's miserably forgettable.<br /><br />The only okay thing was the theme song. Guilty pleasure, they call it... Nananana ninja...

"The Plainsman" represents the directorial prowess of Cecil B. DeMille at its most inaccurate and un-factual. It sets up parallel plots for no less stellar an entourage than Wild Bill Hickok (Gary Cooper), Buffalo Bill Cody (James Ellison), Calamity Jane (Jean Arthur), George Armstrong Custer and Abraham Lincoln to interact, even though in reality Lincoln was already dead at the time the story takes place. Every once in a while DeMille floats dangerously close toward the truth, but just as easily veers away from it into unabashed spectacle and showmanship. The film is an attempt to buttress Custer's last stand with a heap of fiction that is only loosely based on the lives of people, who were already the product of manufactured stuffs and legends. Truly, this is the world according to DeMille - a zeitgeist in the annals of entertainment, but a pretty campy relic by today's standards.<br /><br />TRANSFER: Considering the vintage of the film, this is a moderately appealing transfer, with often clean whites and extremely solid blacks. There's a considerable amount of film grain in some scenes and an absence of it at other moments. All in all, the image quality is therefore somewhat inconsistent, but it is never all bad or all good – just a bit better than middle of the road. Age related artifacts are kept to a minimum and digital anomalies do not distract. The audio is mono but nicely balanced.<br /><br />EXTRAS: Forget it. It's Universal! BOTTOM LINE: As pseudo-history painted on celluloid, this western is compelling and fun. Just take its characters and story with a grain of salt – in some cases – a whole box seems more appropriate!

The only reason I wanted to see this was because of Orlando Bloom. Simply put, the movie was spectacularly average. It's not bad, but it's really not very good. The editing is good; the film is well-paced. The direction is competent and assured. The story is plodding. The film is averagely acted by Ledger, Bloom, and the normally great Watts and Rush. The accents are impenetrable if you're from the US so just sit back and enjoy the scenery (or as I like to call it, Orlando Bloom). By the end of the film, I was neither bored nor moved. Some people have asked what happened to Ned Kelly at the end of the movie. I have to say, I so did not care by that point.<br /><br />Really, the only reason I can recommend this is that Orlando Bloom kind of, sort of shows some hints of range (although the oft-present "I'm pretty and confused" look is prominent), so fangirls may find it worth the matinee price. Other than that, just don't see it. It's neither good enough nor bad enough to be entertaining.

This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.<br /><br />But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.<br /><br />If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell.

I didn't expect to like this film as much as I did. I got it simply because I saw it on the list of Top 25 Most Controversial Films of All Time. It didn't look particularly great. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was one of the most cleverly composed films of recent memory.<br /><br />It's about a twenty-year-old woman wants to know everything. She stores every bit of information she collects in an enormous archive. She experiments with experience in sex, political activism, and human relationships. Meanwhile, film's crew is shown making the film and we view their reactions to the story and each other. Nudity, explicit sex, and controversial politics kept this film from being shown in the US while its seizure by Customs was appealed. The film is a narrative yet it's a documentary that shows us the behind-the- scenes world of the filmmakers during the narrative, the fourth wall being broken. This film is the most direct possible way of making a movie I have ever seen. The movie predominantly works as a time capsule of 1960s psychedelic goings-on, freedom-fighting and sexual liberation. I like to think of it as much more than that.<br /><br />I didn't think I would want to waste my time with the blue version of this movie, but I actually really do. This film is a buried treasure. Give it a try.

Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.<br /><br />Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.

Not sure if I'm referring to those who labeled this a video nasty or to the director..."Devil Hunter" sure is one bizarre 'horror' movie.<br /><br />The plot is a loosey goosey combo of superior films like "Cannibal Ferox" and "Cut and Run." Chick gets kidnapped in the 'jungle' by a 'tribe' of 'savages.' The jungle looks more like a park somewhere in Mexico. The tribe is like a group of hippies who walk around in Party City-style Halloween costume renditions of tribal garb. And the savages range in race from white to Asian to black to hispanic. I suppose Franco just grabbed anyone who looked even slightly ethnic for this romp.<br /><br />To make matters worse, this film has ultra-minimal gore, no real scares and a lot of unnecessary penis. Not fun. I can find something to like in just about any sleazy Italian or Euro-trash film; this one just fell WAY short.<br /><br />2 out of 10, kids.

Much like the comedy duo of its title, "The Sunshine Boys" has become a forgotten classic 30-odd years later. It's hardly mentioned alongside other great film comedies of the 1970s. This makes no sense given the singular specialness of this film, perhaps the best Neil Simon ever wrote.<br /><br />Walter Matthau plays Willy Clark, once half of a legendary vaudeville comedy known as Lewis and Clark, now a bitter 73-year-old solo act who can't get a job in a potato chip commercial. His nephew and agent Ben (Richard Benjamin) is sure he can get work if Willy will only agree to reunite with his estranged partner Al Lewis (George Burns) for an ABC-TV celebration of show business nostalgia.<br /><br />Nostalgia is what "Sunshine Boys" has going for it in spades, right from the start when a series of 1920s film clips showcasing various entertainers from long ago flickers before us to the accompaniment of Cole Porter's "Be A Clown". Then there's the film's present-day setting in Manhattan, where flared trousers and wide polyester ties abound. The periods collide in Willy's glorious mess of a Manhattan apartment, where framed photos and cartoons of long-dead celebrities stare out from the walls at lurid tabloid headlines and empty Zabar grocery bags. If you were alive in the 1970s like me, you might even feel like you were in that apartment.<br /><br />Willy clearly has been living there too long. He's sleeping in front of the television when the kettle in the other room boils. Willy wakes up and picks up the phone.<br /><br />"Hello, who is this?" A pause. "Never mind, it's the tea."<br /><br />Old men living alone can be sad material in almost anyone else's hands, but Simon's deft wit and unerring feeling for character turns this adaptation of his 1972 stage hit into comedy gold. The amazing thing about "The Sunshine Boys" is how much it rubs your noses in Willy's almost existential condition without turning you off at all. "89 years old and just like that, he dies of nothing'" Willy says of one old songwriting friend, before deciding the man probably died from writing a song that rhymed "lady" with "baby".<br /><br />Burns won an Oscar for his understated performance as the gentle but steely Lewis, but it's Matthau who brings this one home, his make-up and proud but ragged bearing really selling you on the idea he was already 73 when he made this. Willy is obnoxious in the extreme, fully deserving Ben's description "crazy freakin' old man", but you root for him throughout, enjoying his small victories even when they come at the cost of others' patience. His lines kill you, too, especially when he's trying to kill Lewis, for whom the TV reunion turns out to be a bad idea.<br /><br />"You're out of touch!" Willy tells Lewis at one point. "I'm still in demand. I'm still hot!"<br /><br />"If this room was on fire you wouldn't be hot," Lewis replies.<br /><br />Director Herbert Ross shoots everything in a very casual and understated way, with low lighting and mid-range shots even in emotional moments so as to leave room for the comedy and the film's overall zen message of grace through quiet acceptance. You never get the feeling you are watching a movie, one of "The Sunshine Boys" many charms, and Ross's direction, like the acting of the three principals, goes a long way toward achieving that end.<br /><br />Comedy is hard, especially when the subjects are people watching life pass them by, but "The Sunshine Boys" makes it all seem a pleasure, because, for us watching, it is.

Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!

This video nasty was initially banned in Britain, and allowed in last November without cuts.<br /><br />It features the Playboy Playmate of the Month October 1979, Ursula Buchfellner. The opening cuts back and forth between Buchfellner and foggy jungle pictures. I am not sure what the purpose of that was. It would have been much better to focus on the bathtub scene.<br /><br />Laura (Buchfellner) is kidnapped and held in the jungle for ransom. Peter (Al Cliver - The Beyond, Zombie) is sent to find her and the ransom. Of course, one of the kidnappers (Antonio de Cabo) manages to pass the time productively, while another (Werner Pochath) whines incessantly.<br /><br />The ransom exchange goes to hell, and Laura runs into the jungle. Will Peter save her before the cannibals have a meal? Oh, yes, there are cannibals in this jungle. Why do you think it was a video nasty! Muriel Montossé is found by Peter and his partner (Antonio Mayans - Angel of Death) on the kidnapper's boat. Montossé is very comfortably undressed. Peter leaves them and goes off alone to find Laura, who has been captured by now. They pass the time having sex, and don't see the danger approaching. Guts, anyone? Great fight between Peter and the naked devil (Burt Altman).<br /><br />Blood, decapitation, guts, lots of full frontal, some great writhing by the cannibal priestess (Aline Mess), and the line, "They tore her heart out," which is hilarious if you see the film.

I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since "Beverly Hills Cop" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work.

This is a poem on film, wonderfully presented and photographed with sensitive artistry. It captures the atmosphere of the time and place perfectly. (Italy's lake district in the twenties.) It's a love story with a twist. The characters are unique and believable. The settings are deliciously exotic. Some of the scenes --- the funeral boat in the fog --- the high long shot of the chess table in the centre of an intricately patterned tile floor --- are beautiful images. And rather than the mandatory happy ending, this story has a bitter sweet one. If film is an art, this is close to a masterpiece.<br /><br />

My children just happened to stop at this movie the other night and as things started to play out it really piqued my interest. I had to head out for bowling league so I had them record it for me on the dvr so I could watch the rest later. Well I just got done watching it and the front of my shirt must be soaked after crying buckets. It was an excellent movie even though I could almost feel the pain and anguish these girls were experiencing. And I never in a million years would have guessed the reason why Alissia had gone from this beautiful girl to an anti-social goth. This was probably WHY my shirt was soaked because I've experienced that same pain that Alissia was feeling. I too would not have sought out this movie, but I'm sure glad I saw it. Very moving, very touching. Great for those who love a good drama or tear-jerker.

I first see this film almost 21 years ago when it was an ITV (before the days of cable and satellite) Matinée. i was off School with the Mumps and i was totally wrapped in the film. i have had it on bought video for about 10 years and i want to obtain a DVD copy of it. David Niven is my all time favourite actor and i think it is a travesty that he was over looked so many times when the Oscars came around. i also think that the queen should have knighted him as he easily did as much for the movie industry if not more than Sean Connery or Anthony Hopkins. the way the film switches from black and white to colour and back again is well done and the film has such stellar actors as Roger Livesy, Marius Goring and an early appearance from Richard Attenborough.

I watched this movie for a project on love. please tell Nicolas Cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character, and then re-read the lines he's saying. My life cannot go on... i accidentally cut off my own hand...my brother was close by. Obviously his fault. And since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of Mom sad and alone. No closure, bad script, and doesn't have enough extension of minor characters. Save yourself, unless your up for a good laugh. Costumes were done appropriately, and extras did a fabulous job. I'm sure it would have been a fun movie to make, but keep it more genre specific, I can't recommend this movie to anyone I know, because it is not an intellectual movie. It is not a chick flick. It is not a strict romantic. And I can't show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. All in all, just not a good flick.

Overall an extremely disappointing picture. Very, very slow build up to the basic storyline. The role of Maria Schrader searching for her families secret past. (Every take seems to last forever…. There is really no rhythm in the film.) ***SPOILERS*** Her Mother Ruth is rescued from the Nazis, by a German woman, played by Katja Riemann. The entire character of Ruth is so one dimensional, so stereotypical. ***SPOILERS END*** The film cuts back and forth between present day New York and Berlin and Berlin 40s something. Please when you do that, give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. There is never a clear indication of time – very annoying. Worst part is, the end. ***SPOILERS*** The entire show and jabber about the Jews being so terribly tormented, simply by a bureaucratic accident! Give me a break. That's how the Jews got out of the Rosenstrasse? The question of who freed the Jews is NEVER answered. Was is Goebels who freed them? Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels? In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why? – I have no idea. Must be the Jewish theme…

THE SUNSHINE BOYS was the hilarious 1975 screen adaptation of Neil Simon's play about a retired vaudevillian team, played by Walter Matthau and George Burns, who had a very bitter breakup and have been asked to reunite one more time for a television special or something like that. The problem is that the two still hate each other and want nothing to do with each other. Richard Benjamin appears as Matthau's nephew, a theatrical agent who has been given the monumental responsibility of making this reunion a reality. This warm and winning comedy is a lovely valentine to a forgotten form of entertainment...vaudeville and it works mainly thanks to one of Neil Simon's better screenplays and outstanding work by Matthau, Burns, and Benjamin. Burns won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this, but I think Matthau walks away with this film with his flawlessly hilarious performance as Willy Clark. Matthau was nominated for Best Actor but didn't stand a chance against Nicholson for ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST; however, in another year, this was an Oscar-worthy performance. Matthau commands the screen and there is not a false note in this beautifully timed performance. The scene where he is auditioning for a potato chip commercial and can't get the name of the product right is a classic. THE SUNSHINE BOYS is a warm and winning Neil Simon comedy which shines thanks to unbeatable chemistry between Matthau and Burns.

Terrible movie. Nuff Said.<br /><br />These Lines are Just Filler. The movie was bad. Why I have to expand on that I don't know. This is already a waste of my time. I just wanted to warn others. Avoid this movie. The acting sucks and the writing is just moronic. Bad in every way. The only nice thing about the movie are Deniz Akkaya's breasts. Even that was ruined though by a terrible and unneeded rape scene. The movie is a poorly contrived and totally unbelievable piece of garbage.<br /><br />OK now I am just going to rag on IMDb for this stupid rule of 10 lines of text minimum. First I waste my time watching this offal. Then feeling compelled to warn others I create an account with IMDb only to discover that I have to write a friggen essay on the film just to express how bad I think it is. Totally unnecessary.

I'm rather surprised that no reviewer so far has commented on the rather elementary chess blunder in Luzhin's game as white against an unnamed opponent immediately before the final. Despite the use of Jonathan Speelman as consultant chess expert, Luzhin is shown winning the game with an illegal move. In between the rapid cuts away and back to the board it is not hard to spot that after Luzhin's combination culminating in a queen sacrifice, his rook on d1 is still pinned by black's rook at c1 against his king in the corner at h1. Thus he is unable to play the purported mating move Rd1-d8 which would be illegal - but he's shown doing so to rapturous applause from the audience.

Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.<br /><br />(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is "spoiled?") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition. <br /><br />It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.<br /><br />A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, "I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara." Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, "Hey, I'm the Next Victim!" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire. <br /><br />In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.<br /><br />As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis. <br /><br />For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2.

I was gifted with this movie as it had such a great premise, the friendship of three women bespoiled by one falling in love with a younger man.<br /><br />Intriguing.<br /><br />NOT! I hasten to add. These women are all drawn in extreme caricature, not very supportive of one another and conspiring and contriving to bring each other down.<br /><br />Anna Chancellor and Imelda Staunton could do no wrong in my book prior to seeing this, but here they are handed a dismal script and told to balance the action between slapstick and screwball, which doesn't work too well when the women are all well known professionals in a very small town.<br /><br />And for intelligent women they spend a whole pile of time bemoaning the lack of men/sex/lust in their lives. I felt much more could have been made of it given a decent script and more tension, the lesbian sub-plot went nowhere and those smoking/drinking women (all 3 in their forties???) were very unrealistic - even in the baby scene - screw the baby, gimme a cigarette! Right.<br /><br />Like I said, a shame of a waste. 4 out of 10.

This is a very enjoyable film with excellent actors and actresses evoking a range of emotions. It contains some really excellent humour which the whole family can enjoy. You get to know the characters quickly and experience their ups and downs. And, it ends very upbeat

When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.<br /><br />Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.<br /><br />The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.<br /><br />The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.

This is no art-house film, it's mainstream entertainment. <br /><br />Lot's of beautiful people, t&a, and action. I found it very entertaining. It's not supposed to be intellectually stimulating, it's a fun film to watch! Jesse and Chace are funny too, which is just gravy. Definitely worth a rental.<br /><br />So in summary, I'd recommend checking it out for a little Friday night entertainment with the boys or even your girl (if she likes to see other girls get it on!)<br /><br />The villains are good too. Vinnie, Corey Large, the hatian guy from Heroes. Very nasty villains.

Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time. This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting. The script is unbelievable. The dialog is unbelievable. Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one. The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy. It also plugs in every cliche in the book. Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?<br /><br />Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review. When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape. Avoid this movie.

After an initial release of 4 very good Eurotrash titles, REDEMPTION has managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel with THE BLOODSUCKER LEADS THE DANCE. I found NO Bloodsuckers anywhere in this movie.<br /><br />The story is simple. A mysterious count invites several actresses to his castle for a little vacation. After some sofcore sexual shenanigans the girls get decapitated one by one. Who is the killer? Who knows? There are more red herrings in this one than at the local fish market on Friday.<br /><br />The pace is excruciating. The story is silly and the skin scenes aren't all that terrific either.<br /><br />Give this one a miss.

So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.<br /><br />There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.<br /><br />It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.<br /><br />4 out of 10, kids.

:Spoilers:<br /><br />I was very disappointed in Love's Abiding Joy. I had been waiting a really long time to see it and I finally got the chance when it re-aired Thursday night on Hallmark. I love the first three "Love" movies but this one was nothing like I thought it was going to be. The whole movie was sad and depressing, there were way to many goofs, and the editing was very poor - to many scenes out of context. I also think the death of baby Kathy happened way to soon and Clarks appearance in the movie just didn't seem to fit. It seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there - they were all lacking emotion. There seemed to be no interaction between Missie and Willie at all.<br /><br />I think the script writers should have went more by the book. It seems like every movie that's been made so far just slips further and further away from Janette Oke's writings. I mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or Clark getting hurt because of it. And I think Missie and Willies reactions to Kathy's death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard.<br /><br />Out of the four movies that have been made so far I'd have to say that Love's Abiding Joy is my least favorite. I hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if Clarks character is in them I hope he's got a bigger part and I hope his part isn't so bland. I also hope there is more of Scottie and Cookie and maybe even Marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.

This is the start of a new and interesting Star Trek series. It has a "down to earth"-kind of feel with darker and less "plaggy" scenography.<br /><br />The characters need some more time to develop but they have potential. One thing that is fairly disappointing (with all Star Trek series really) is that they portray such a gloomy picture of the equality between men and women in the future when they paint a very positive picture about everything else. (Earth has stopped war, famine etc)<br /><br /> The female characters here are two, subcommander T'Pol who is vulcan and communications officer Hoshi who is human. Hoshi is quite wimpy and T'Pol is made to be a "vulcan babe".<br /><br /> Some of the crew attitudes feel a bit too American (as opposed to the more international feel of the TNG-crew) but creates interesting dynamics.<br /><br /> A very good pilot though for a very good series.

This film is terrible. You don't really need to read this review further. If you are planning on watching it, suffice to say - don't (unless you are studying how not to make a good movie).<br /><br />The acting is horrendous... serious amateur hour. Throughout the movie I thought that it was interesting that they found someone who speaks and looks like Michael Madsen, only to find out that it is actually him! A new low even for him!!<br /><br />The plot is terrible. People who claim that it is original or good have probably never seen a decent movie before. Even by the standard of Hollywood action flicks, this is a terrible movie.<br /><br />Don't watch it!!! Go for a jog instead - at least you won't feel like killing yourself.

This story was never among my favourites in Christie's works so I was pleasantly surprised to quite enjoy this adaptation. The mouse motif was effective if a little overdone, the bones of the story are there although more emphasis is placed on the 'crime in the past' subplot. The students were all pretty much as I imagined them although its a pity they weren't a more cosmopolitan bunch - perhaps the revised thirties setting didn't allow for that! I thought some very daring risks were taken with the filming; perhaps its because I've not long re-read the book but it seemed pretty obvious to me who the murderer was from their appearance in some reveal shots quite early on.<br /><br />Humour was much more prevalent in these early Poirots. Sometimes it works but I found a lot of it rather heavy handed in this episode (though I did smile at the 'Lemon sole' throwaway line). Altogether though, a solid entry in the series though not one of the best.

Rating "10/10" Master piece<br /><br />Some years ago, i heard Spielberg comment that he would redo the movie here and there if he had a chance. Well, Mr Spielberg, i guess nothing is perfect, but this movie - together with schindler's List - is your best. Even Oprah acts well in this one !<br /><br />What got me most is the realism of the story and drama. Stuff like this happened and is still happening in the world.

This movie is not in anyway funny, it tries to be funny with it's lame humor, which is so dry and boring that the movie is just 2 hours of torture. Throughout the whole movie i was thinking one thing, "when is this gonna end". One thing you have to hand to them, is that they do have a very few mildly funny moments, which is also why i gave it a whole 2 stars. It is unoriginal and uses up almost every old blonde joke in the book, even the ones that wasn't funny the first time. It basically is a movie to belittle blondes and to record the whole repetoir of blonde jokes.<br /><br />To sum it all up, this movie is blonde humor gone bad, it is not worth paying any amount of money to watch, it is just that bad.

This is not so much film as big budget children's television. As far as I can tell, the villain is a giant swarm of chocolate covered espresso beans. This theory seems to be verified by the fact that the subtitles refer to it as 'Insomnia'. When it's first mentioned that a civilization had been wiped out by insomnia, I thought "Wow! A nihilistic martial arts film!" but no such luck. Although you have to consider it experimental cinema when the villain is strangled by an old man's long, white eyebrows. Zu Warriors makes exactly the same amount of sense whether the subtitles are on or off. That's not a good sign. I found the special effects to be somewhere between Ray Harryhausen and Xena: Warrior Princess. Primitive.

Of course the plot, script, and, especially casting are strong in the film. So many fine things to see. One aspect I liked especially is the idea of the antagonist--Luzhini's (Turturro's)--ex-mentor working his evil on the sidelines. His chess opponent--an Italian dandy in three piece and cane--turns out to be a real gent, and a truly fine chess player. To his credit the "opponent" nobly goes along with the plan at the end to complete the final game for the championship posthumously (Luzhin has taken a flyer out a window--sad, but so releasing to him)by way of the unstable genius' widow (Emily Watson.) In death, then, because of the gallantry of an honorable chess master, Luzhin's defence (which he worked out in a late moment of lucidity) is allowed to be played. The Italian gent commends the play and calls it brilliant. Talk about a dramatic "end game!"

Call me stupid, but I absolutely loved the 2001 horror movie, Valentine. It was so well-made, well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc! Everything about it was wonderful! There were parts that were relatively routine (Lily's death), very funny (www.Bleed-Me-Dry.com), completely horrifying and creepy (Paige's death), and just plain heartbreaking (the first scene). I think the entire cast did a great job, especially the three leads: David Boreanaz, Denise Richards (both of whom I met, and got autographs from, during the filming of this movie - VERY nice people!), and Marley Shelton.<br /><br />I am very sick of people calling this movie "another Scream clone". This movie is, in no way, a Scream clone. In fact, this film runs rings around Scream. It actually makes SENSE! Scream was also NOT the only movie to feature a masked killer in it. Excuse me, but it looks like Scream was also a clone too (ahem..., Friday the 13th, Halloween, and many other scary movies also featured masked killers). I also think that the novelty of the cupid-masked killer is brilliant. It's so strange to see a sweet, cupid face doing all of these horrible things. Another novelty (the nose bleeding) makes way for a fantastic ending! The ending gives me chills every time I see it!!!!! So, even if you didn't like it the first time, watch Valentine again and give it another chance!<br /><br />PS- Keep an eye out for my new website (WWW.LOVE-HURTS.ORG)! Coming soon...

The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie. Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding. So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process. The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy. Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding. Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die." Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out. The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not. There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored. For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man. Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.

We loved the movie. I am a mother to two little men. I love having a movie I can watch with them where men have integrity and character. Moveis where money is not the most important thing. And family's are forever and love means more then words. <br /><br />I do wish we saw more of the Davis family. But over all I loved it left me with the same feeling the others did "please don't be over". We both wish actors would not change.The new actors were good replacement tho.<br /><br />My 9 year old son loved this movie too. asked me to go buy them all. He is a movie critic so for him to say this tells me something. Family should all see this move buy it for friends . Help bring back a time of values. We will be Reading the books now that we are hooked. really hope to see more. Be Blessed happy moving

For a "no budget" movie this thing rocks. I don't know if America's gonna like it, but we were laughing all the way through. Some really Funny Funny stuff. Really non-Hollywood.<br /><br />The Actors and Music rocked. The cars and gags and even the less in your face stuff cracked us up. Whooo Whooo!<br /><br />I've seen some of the actors before, but never in anything like this, one or two of them I think I've seen in commercials or in something somewhere. Basically it Rocked! Luckily I got to see a copy from a friend of one of the actors.

This is a complex film that explores the effects of Fordist and Taylorist modes of industrial capitalist production on human relations. There are constant references to assembly line production, where workers are treated as cogs in a machine, overseen by managers wielding clipboards, controlling how much hair the workers leave exposed, and firing workers (Stanley) who meet all criteria (as his supervisor says, are always on time, are hard workers, do good work) but who may in some unspecified future make a mistake. <br /><br />This system destroys families - Stanley has to send his father to a nursing home (where he quickly dies) after Stanley loses his job. Iris' daughter is a single teen mother who drops out of high school to take a job in the plant. References are made to the fact that now, with declining wages, both partners need to work, the implication being that there's nobody left at home to care for the kids. Iris' husband is dead from an illness, and with the multiple references in the film about the costs of medical care, the viewer must wonder if he might have lived with better and more costly care. Iris' brother in law gets abusive after yet another unsuccessful day at the unemployment office when his wife yells at him for buying a beer with her savings instead of leaving it for her face lift and/or teeth job (even the working class with no stake in conventional bourgeois notions of perfection and beauty buy into them). The one reference to race in the film is through a black factory line worker whose husband is in jail (presumably, he's also black, and black men suffer disproportionally high incarceration rates). She remarks that he, like her, "is doing time" - her family is composed of a prisoner and a wage slave.<br /><br />Stanley, however, still believes in human relations and is therefore for most of the film outside of the system of Fordist capitalism. He cares for his father in spite of the fact that it was his father's traveling salesman job that resulted in his illiteracy - he has not yet reduced human relations to a purely instrumental contract, as Iris' brother in law does (suggesting that he "married the wrong sister"). He does not, as Iris says, conform to the work-eat-sleep routine of everyone else; rather, he uses technology and the techniques of industrial production in an artisanal and creative way, in a sort of Bauhaus ideal. This was the dream of early modernists and 1920's socialists (such as the Bauhaus) - to use technology to provide for all basic needs, allowing for more free time for creative human work and fuller human relations. He is also outside of traditional gender relations. He cooks, he cleans, he cares for his family, and he knows how to iron. Iris, on the other hand, lives in a traditionally male role - she's a factory worker, the mains source of income for her (extended) family, and she brings Stanley into the public realm, traditionally off-limits to women. By teaching him to read and write, she gives him access to the world of knowledge, also traditionally gendered male.<br /><br />Literacy here is used as a metaphor for the (traditionally masculine) public realm and the systems of circulation (monetary, vehicular, cultural) that enable participation in the public realm. Without this access, Stanley is feminized - the jobs open to him are cooking and cleaning. He is excluded from all regular circulations, unable to participate in the monetary (can't open a bank account), in the vehicular (can't get a driver's license, can't ride the bus), and in the social (he asks if he exists if he can't write his name).<br /><br />After learning to read, he grabs books on auto repair, farming, and spirituality (the Bible). The Word of God is therefore relativized, placed on the same value plane as how-to books. In fact, organized religion in general is only very occasionally present - the Bible also appears on a dresser as the camera pans to find Stanley and Iris having sex. It is, however, acknowledged as a moral force - Iris, clearly a character devoted to living a "good" life, mentions at the beginning of the film that her rosary was among the objects lost in a purse snatching.<br /><br />Once able to read, he enters the system and lands a managerial position with a health care plan, a car, and a house, taking his place at the head of the family, the breadwinner. Presumably, he's an industrial designer, dreaming up products that will require others enduring the drudgery of the assembly line to produce. This ending, probably the only bit of conventional Hollywood in the film, is so incongruous with all that has come before that I at least wonder if it wasn't forced in by some Studio exec suddenly worried about the lack of a feel-good ending and its potential effect on the bottom line.<br /><br />Now that, according to the pundits, we've comfortably moved on to post-industrial capitalism, the film also has a slightly nostalgic feel, as though we needed the historical distance to really analyze what happened during that period. <br /><br />Nevertheless, it's highly recommended - at least if you want to exercise your brain. Disregard the ending, and it's close to a perfect 10.

I was sooooo excited to see this movie after finally reading the book this week. My 13 year old son was looking forward to it too. I rented it and snuggled down to enjoy a classic holiday story brought to life on screen.<br /><br />Boy, was I disappointed. This movie veered off from the book more times than is forgivable. George C. Scott is an excellent actor but in this, it seemed that he was fully into character only about 20% of the time. The rest of the time he was quite flat.<br /><br />I realize that this was made in '84, pre-CG effects, for the most part. But it looked to be very B-movie quality, especially the encounter with Jacob Marley.<br /><br />The biggest disappointment was the fact that they left out one of the most moving parts of the story: When the Spirit of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on the whirlwind tour of the world, observing people in the bleakest of circumstances still having the light and love of Christmastime.<br /><br />I will admit that Mr. Scott did a good job with the "reformed" Scrooge at the end. That was a refreshing portrayal.<br /><br />I wish that Bob Cratchit had been portrayed as a little more ragged and down-trodden. And Tiny Tim... oh don't even get me started on bad child actors...

I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).<br /><br />About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well...

A brilliant chess player attends a tournament and falls in love with a woman he meets there. On itself this would be a pretty bad angle on a story. So, there is more. There is the fact that the chess player is also completely alienated from the world because of his brilliance at the game and the fact there is some history haunting the player.<br /><br />This film steps back and forth from romantic frivolity to tournament tension to historic events that shaped the chess player and works quite nicely. It's easy to grow attached to the two main characters and easy to believe they might hit it off together like the way they do in this film. The added effect of the tournament is very good too and creates a nice tension setting.<br /><br />I have no idea of the strength of the chess players as I don't play the game myself but it looks nice and believable. All in all, most of the film goes down very easily. It is also forgotten again very easily though. So it's nice to watch but nothing more than that.<br /><br />7 out of 10 chess players caught between a rook and a hard place

This is a movie that relies solely on the somewhat controversial image of incest and lesbianism to get noticed.That is it.The dialogs are pathetic and the sensuality of the "sex scenes" is absolutely absent.The acting and the dialog are more suited for high-school children,yet the subject is intended for adult audiences. It is a gutless and shallow movie.It could have been way better if it had a story and more drama. Ah and on top of that, one more thing: why are inner monologues so excessively used? Makes it seem so cheap.All in all an embarrassing movie for Romanian cinema as well as for mature audiences attempting to view it.I know the means are scarce but, that is not always an excuse for a movie flopping as this one does.And please start using some good actors in your movies and stop recycling them from musicians (Tudor Chirila) - they can't act!

Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.

What could be more schlocky than the idea of private detectives getting involved with the women they're supposed to be spying on? And most of the dialogue as written is perfectly banal.<br /><br />But the actors turn the dialog into something that makes sense. You can see real people behind the unreal lines. And the directing is wonderful. Each scene does just what it has to and ends without dragging on too long.<br /><br />I showed this to several friends in the mid-80s because I was perplexed at how such bad material could be made into such a good movie. The friends enjoyed it too.

When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether. While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier; she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart. The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless. Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. Don't waste your time with this movie; read the book instead.

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

While it's early to say how the series will evolve, I can say that the pilot was less than I thought it would be. There is still potential for the series, however. Of course when I first saw Voyager I thought it had potential, too - but was sorely disappointed. My gut tells me Enterprise won't be as bad as Voyager, however.<br /><br />As for the impressions of the pilot...<br /><br />The pilot had some good ideas and good themes. I liked the introduction. The show's opening credits were interesting, with the progress of exploration and a fitting theme song. Scott Bakula is excellent in the role of captain.<br /><br />Where it fell short for me was largely that the story lacked the "feel" of setting out on a grand adventure. The plot of the episode itself was more a "generic" Trek story with the themes of "exploration" and "first step towards space" merely subplot and subtext. Were you to edit out the references to this being the first deep space mission, the plot would be hard to differentiate between the eras of Enterprise, TOS or TNG. The central plot didn't reflect or do justice to the grand theme of the series.<br /><br /> The plot of launching the first mission would have been grand enough without the "action". Instead of isolated references to the newness of exploration, they could have been the story. Get a little more nostalgic and philosophical about it (oh, for a TV show that once again would make us THINK). Make us feel the excitement of "the wind" and being on "the sea" instead of distracting us with a rescue and a plethora of gunplay. There was WAY too much gunplay.<br /><br />We had the feeling more that humans were the "freshmen" in an established school. New kids on the block, as opposed to venturing into a largely unknown universe. Sadly, the Klingons landed on our doorstep instead of us finding them. That meeting could have been far more historic and far more sociological. Just how DO two such different societies interact? Don't just hint about it, SHOW it!<br /><br />I had to think of it more as `Trek with an akward crew and limited technology' as opposed to `the first brave steps into the unknown'. I wanted to see something newer and fresher. The series promises to have a new concept but so far I haven't seen this new, great concept.<br /><br />I will conclude with reiterating the sentiment that the series has potential. There are some interesting characters. Bakula is wonderful. Blalock has potential. The overall theme is the most interesting since we first saw Kirk in a world before Apollo 11. If only future episodes can do justice to this grand and wonderful theme, we will have a show which will create new legends.<br /><br />You shoot an arrow into the air... Good luck Capt. Archer.<br /><br />To the producers: TAKE MORE RISKS AND MAKE US *THINK*! :-)

God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!

This is definitely the worst movie Adam's ever done but at this point in his life, he was just happy to have a movie. There are 3 or 4 laughs in it but I used the fast forward button through some of it. Don't waste your time. I only saw it because I wanted to see all of his movies, but it sucked.

Wow-this one sucks. I'm gonna sum it up as quickly as possible. <br /><br />A count invites 4 naive sluts back to his castle. A bunch of nothing happens for a long time. Some lame and un-erotic soft-core sex scenes happen. Some girls get their heads cut off (off-screen)-The End.<br /><br />The only things going for this one are the decent looking sets and costumes, some bad dubbing which leads to some unintentionally funny dialogue, and a few brief nudie shots. And believe me-those things are not enough to redeem the 90-minutes of tedium that this film is. In fact-the best part is the tacked on beginning from the distributor that features some slutty goth chicks covered in blood and showing their tits-and again-this is definitely not worth the price of admission for this garbage. As everyone else has noted- the title of the film is completely nonsensical-as there's absolutely no bloodsucking, nor dancing of any sort in the film at all. It may as well have been called 'The Goat-Raper Leads the Circle-Jerk'-and at least then it would have had a better title that also pertains to nothing in the film. An accurate title would have been '90 Minutes of Torture'-another alluring title that would have at least been truthful...for the viewer. Honestly-the trailer that's on the disc shows all the best parts (and i use the term 'best' extremely loosely...) so I highly suggest watching that instead if you're still curious.  I can't imagine anyone liking this wreck of a film-please take my advice and leave this one on the shelf. 2/10 

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

This film is, in short, a cinematic masterpiece. The film is moved along brilliantly by intense images that deeply move the sensitive viewer. The film opens during the Spanish Civil War as a group of children seek their revenge on another child. In fact, they are acting out in their world a version of what they have witnessed in the adult world around them. Later we meet three of these children again as adults at a sanatorium. Here we see what life has wrought on each of them. One is a reclusive sexually repressed patient. Another man is a hustler who has become ill. The third child, a young lady, has become a nun and is serving at the sanatorium. This film is an allegory about the effect of violence on the psyche.<br /><br />This film has a climax that is definitely not for the squeamish members of the viewing audience but it is logical as well as profoundly moving. The acting is excellent and the script is quite well written. There is a musical score that provides an undercurrent of dread throughout this film. This is not a film for thrill seekers but a film for a thoughtful audience.

This Cecil B. DeMille epic of the old West contains what may be Jean Arthur's finest performance, as a hysterical, eccentric, incurably amoral, but devotedly doting Calamity Jane. She really pulled it off! Gary Cooper is at his most taciturn, but manages some occasional pithy sayings: 'The plains are big, but trails cross ... sometimes.' The story is a pastiche to end all pastiches. All the cowboy heroes of Western lore seem to be in there somehow except for Jesse James. Even Abraham Lincoln opens the story in person (or at least, DeMille would have us believe so). There is no room for anything so evanescent as subtlety, this is a 'stomp 'em in the face' tale for the masses. A remarkable thing about this film however is that it is a very early full frontal attack on what Eisenhower was eventually to name 'the military industrial complex'. It isn't just a story about gun-runners, but about arming anyone for money, and doing so from the heart of Washington. But let's not get into politics, let's leave that to DeMille, who can be guaranteed to be superficial. The chief interest of this film all these years later is that it uses the first film score composed by George Antheil, who has a lot to say about the job in his autobiography, 'Bad Boy of Music'. Antheil seems to have originated 'the big sound' adopted by all subsequent Westerns, whereby the plains sing out with the voices and sounds of countless cowboys in the sky, celebrating the open spaces and interweaving common melodies. That is why it does not sound at all unusual, because we have heard it a thousand times. But he seems to have been the first to summon up the combined rustlings of all the sage brush into this symphony of the open skies which has entered into American mythic lore, and given it a soundtrack which has never varied since then, corny as it may be, but doubtless appropriate. It is amusing to see Anthony Quinn in an early appearance as a Cheyenne Indian. Gabby Hayes is in there somewhere, but you miss him in the crowd. Gary Cooper overtops them all, looming large, - but when did he ever loom small?

This was an exteremely good historical drama. John Turturro is excellent as the tortured genius Luzhin and brilliantly portrays the character's manic affectations such as his strange dancing. Emily Watson is fine in her support role as the sensitive lover Natalia.<br /><br />The relatonship between chess and near madness is well explored by Gorris and familiar Nabokov preoccupations such as 'eternal innocence' (i.e. 'Lolita') are evident in this film. I think I will now go on to read the novel. It was a touching and tragic ending and it was hard to keep a dry eye. Brilliant movie!

One of the finest films ever made! Why it only got a 7.6 rating is a mystery. This film is a window into the world of the black experience in America. Should be mandatory viewing for all white people and all children above age 10. I recommend watching it with "The Long Walk Home" as a companion piece. If you think Whoopi Goldberg's work is about "Homer and Eddie" or "Hollywood Squares," think again. Don't miss this movie, which should have won the Oscar. (And read the book, too!)

"The Crush" is a pleasant enough 40-something friends romantic chick flick for the first two-thirds or so, as it tries to be a Brit "Sex and the City". <br /><br />I particularly enjoyed the turn-around of the trophy young hunk whose character is not much fleshed out (come to think of it we didn't see all that much physical flesh of him either and Kenny Doughty is worth seeing more of). <br /><br />They sure make a lot more deal of young man/older woman than was made of the opposite in either version of "Sabrina" (neither movie do I like) or for that matter with the Douglas/Zeta-Jones or Dion/Svengali nuptials.<br /><br />Surrounding Andie MacDowell as an ex pat otherwise are welcome familiars from Brit dramas and comedies, such as tart-tongued Anna Chancellor. <br /><br />The plot twists towards the end feel very deus ex machina. But it wasn't until the credits came up at the end that I realized what might really be wrong. Just as with "Sex and the City," the writer/director is male, here first-timer Scot John McKay, and I think he really wanted to do a script about three gay men, probably about them coming out in relation to their lovers and at work (the characters are a school principal, a cop and a doctor), which would have been a better and more interesting movie. The working title for the film was "The Sad F*cker's Club" which would have made its parallels with the gay "Broken Hearts Club" even more obvious.<br /><br />(originally written 4/6/2002)

This movie is traditional bollywood fare as far as the star power, sentimentality and love triangle of emotions. What really bothered me about this movie was the makers' absurd notion of surrogate mother. A whore who conceives a child with someone after have sex with the man (of the family desiring a child) is not a surrogate mother. Neither is she a good candidate for a surrogate mother. I have seen Indian movies and television shows that made 10 to 15 years ago that dealt with this issue more intelligently. The whole concept of the movie is ridiculous and absolutely implausible. I realize that most bollywood movies aren't meant to be plausible, but they don't pretend to be either. This movie wants us to emote along with the characters, but this can't done with such a ridiculous, contrived conflict. I would have expected better from Abbas and Mustan.

Assuming this won't end up a straight-to-video release, I would have to say void this title at all costs. Unless you're bored of good, well-executed movies, that is. I saw this last night at AFI Dallas, and I left with 20 minutes remaining, simply because I didn't care anymore (about the plot, not about insulting the director...that is awkward). When you can spot a goof only 5 minutes into the movie (a shot out, shattered window before any shots are fired...and then the window breaks with the first shot), things are going to bad. Let's just say this is only an indicator of things to come...unfortunately.<br /><br />I'll spare you all the details, but this is sub-par in every manner, even the half-assed acting by Michael Madsen is disappointing when you're expecting half-assed acting from him. And the rape scene...Christ! "Shut up and take it" should never be used in a rape scene. EVER.<br /><br />3/10

Before Dogma 95: when Lars used movies as art, not just a story. A beautiful painting about love and death. This is one of my favorite movies of all time. The color... The music... Just perfect.

I can't tell you all how much I love this movie. I have read reviews that say that this move is "too confusing" or "like swimming in drying concrete". I say that these reviewers have no imagination! For anyone who loves Fantasy Fiction, this movie is for you. If you ever loved playing Dungeons & Dragons... this movie is for you, (especially if you got into the Oriental Adventures) I'm just sorry that I did not get to see this movie on the big screen. (Just more incentive to get my own big screen t.v. :-)

(Spoilers)<br /><br />I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.<br /><br />The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.<br /><br />First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.<br /><br />Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.<br /><br />Too bad.

This movie has Wild Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane, Buffalo Bill and General Custer all together. Gary Cooper plays Wild Bill and Jean Arthur plays Calamity Jane and Charles Bickford plays the bad guy who sells weapons to the Indians and you can hardly recognize him. This was the first time Cecil B. DeMille and Gary Cooper worked together and the next movie the made was basically the same but set in a different time. This movie starts out with Lincoln's assassination and it also deals with an Indian war. Calamity Jane is in love with Wild Bill and Buffalo Bill has gotten married and now wants to stay home. This movie also deals with Custer's last stand and is far from accurate. Gary Cooper is good as usual and i usually don't like Jean Arthur but i liked her here.

<br /><br />Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.<br /><br />Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.<br /><br />One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.<br /><br />More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.<br /><br />This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.<br /><br />Hollow!!!

This movie stars Emily Watson, of Breaking the Waves fame. This movie about one man's obsession takes place at a resort where a chess tournament is being held. A chess master arrives and shortly after falls madly in love (at first sight) with a woman, played by Emily Watson. She falls for this oddball of a man, who is obsessed with chess. This is all at the dismay of her mother, who is far more interested in seeing her with another young gentleman; a proper gentleman. Her mother feels that this is just a passing fancy for the young woman, as she has a tendency to take in odd animals and such. What ensues is mostly a journey through the man's psyche. It tells the story of how his past is closely tied with his present. Emily Watson is amazing in this, as well as the actor who plays the main character. It is definitely slow, but is well worth the watching. The ending was even satisfying. :)

This is a great film - esp when compared with the sometimes wearisome earnestness of today's politically-minded filmmakers. A film that can so easily combine sex, gender relations, politics and art is a rarity these days. While the bouyant optimism of the 1960's can't be regained, I think we can at least learn a lesson from the film's breezy energy and charm. I don't know what those who label the film "boring" were watching - there's so much packed into it that it never remains the same film for more that 15 min at a time.

That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...<br /><br />None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!<br /><br />Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense. <br /><br />The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!<br /><br />3/10